If in the eyes of the law, murder, if it was an act of self-defence, is accepted. Then the motive of euthanasia, should be accepted as it is helping to ease one’s pain and suffering. If a doctor is expected to help treat the sick by prescribing medicines that will relieve the patient's suffering (at any cost) even if the medications potentially give rise to serious side effects. If medically, family members are allowed to remove life support(passive euthanasia) of a patient, then what more is it to end the suffering and pain. This means dealing with distress should be the priority even if it affects one's life expectancy. Euthanasia follows the same theory of dealing with torment in a way that it helps one die peacefully out of possible peril. The family has to bear the cost of medical expenses, those who are unable to afford a prolonged unproductive treatment will continue to do so. Some family heirs who would misuse euthanasia as a tool for wealth inheritance is not entirely true. Reason being that, the relatives can withdraw life support leading to early death of the said individual even in the absence of legalized euthanasia. Here they aren't actively causing death, but passively waiting for it without the patient's consent. This is passive involuntary euthanasia that is witnessed around us even without legal support. Whereas, passive euthanasia has always been out there and moreover law doesn't prohibit it. Disrespect and overuse of (passive) euthanasia has always existed and will always be practiced by surrogates with false motives.
Mercy killing would lead to the 'slippery slope effect', which is when those who are unable to voice their desires, are put to death like the senile, or a baby or someone in a coma ...etc... It would cause decline in health care and cause victimization of the most vulnerable sections of society. Who is given the 'right to die' to 'right to kill'? Euthanasia is said to be an act of murder, with no one's right to end life or be the judge of what happens next. Who are we to assess whether a disorder of mental nature qualifies mercy killing? What if one's pain threshold is below optimum and the patient perceives the circumstances to be not worthy of living? How would one know whether the wish to die is the result of an unbalanced thought process or a logical decision in mentally-ill patients? What if the individual chooses assisted suicide as an option and the family wouldn't agree?
My view is that no form of death is inevitable, whether one person chooses to die or chooses to live, should be given the free will of those who are in pain. What affects a person's life and how a person feels is an individualistic view. No one can understand your pain, we can grieve and we can support, but we can never truly feel the intensity of pain that one is going through.
