> but implementing assisted death needs careful consideration
Yes.
> and defeating politically the small subset of people that think life with extreme suffering is precious.
You don't need to defeat us. All you need is a clear-cut agreement between the patient and the doctor, preferably in advance for those who are physically unable to decide at the end, similar to a DNI. Between the patient and the doctor, and possibly the patient's family, it's no one else's business (though I still think second-party euthanasia of non-terminal persons is disgusting, and that they should commit suicide without involving a second party). It's when government or other third parties start getting involved that everyone should have an issue with euthanasia.
> All you need is a clear-cut agreement between the patient and the doctor,
Then you are not part of the group of persons I was pointing out. Is was thinking of people against it regardless of the conditions. Some form of consent is needed for euthanasia. How strong this consent should be (written agreement before? Or must explicitly tell the doctor right before the injection?) needs to be decided after thinking carefully about how to keep the law being useful while avoiding abuses. But right now euthanasia is fully illegal; the best one can get is starving to death.
I actually am probably one of the one's you are pointing out. In that I don't want a government sanctioned process for this (it leads to a slippery slope in the countries it has been enacted in[1]). At best I'm basically in favor of decriminalization, not legalization, and not a standardized process that can be altered over time.
"By establishing a social policy that keeps physician-assisted suicide and euthanasia illegal but recognizes exceptions, we would adopt the correct moral view: the onus of proving that everything had been tried and that the motivation and rationale were convincing would rest on those who wanted to end a life.
Also this case in Canada of a woman with MCS who couldn't get better housing away from the chemicals. It was easier to give her medical assistance in dying than to get her to a house or apartment free from other people's smoke and cleaning chemicals: https://www.ctvnews.ca/health/woman-with-chemical-sensitivit...
She's not the only Canadian case of it being easier to grant MAID than to get functioning health and welfare services. One person was granted it because he was about to become homeless.
If you reread my comment more closely you'll see that I'm not. I list a couple of options, only one of which is suicide. I'm willing to tolerate various things that I consider repugnant, even though there is a limit.
Yes.
> and defeating politically the small subset of people that think life with extreme suffering is precious.
You don't need to defeat us. All you need is a clear-cut agreement between the patient and the doctor, preferably in advance for those who are physically unable to decide at the end, similar to a DNI. Between the patient and the doctor, and possibly the patient's family, it's no one else's business (though I still think second-party euthanasia of non-terminal persons is disgusting, and that they should commit suicide without involving a second party). It's when government or other third parties start getting involved that everyone should have an issue with euthanasia.