[0xbadc0de5]

It's easy to blame a single bad actor in individual cases, but there still exists the very serious issue that it is even possible for single bad actors to advocate for killing their patients. Add to that the bureaucratic capture, and it's all but inevitable that we will see more, and more disturbing cases. After all, as soon as euthanasia is a profession, there will be people who will need to perform that role. They will want to be good at their job and get promoted. They may take great pride in being the best at it. There will be training courses on how to best euthanize a human. There will be departments dedicated to performing the act and they will have budgets and administrators. And those administrators, wanting to secure their performance bonuses, will seek to expand their department and demonstrate value. Perhaps through growth, perhaps through efficiency. Likewise, ICU care is very expensive. If euthanasia is an option, hospital administrators, being conscious of budget constraints and wanting to best serve the most people, may look to euthanizing seriously injured patients. They may even convince themselves it is in the patient's best interest - we're putting them out of their misery after all.

My point is, this sort of undertaking quickly and inevitably becomes an ethical minefield. The only winning move is not to play.

[defrost]

> The only winning move is not to play.

That's not a winning move for those that sought the right of voluntary euthanasia (that to which the subject consents).

As for your argument we can see it in action expressed via the number of firefighters that start fires to keep themselves employed and I take your point that the only defence is to eliminate fire departments.

[0xbadc0de5]

If you think that the edge case (killing people) outweighs the normal case (treating people), then I suppose we'll have to agree to disagree. I'm not arguing against the idea that a small number of people have suffering so severe that they may seek suicide to alleviate it. I'm arguing that the normalisation of such "treatment" is fraught with unintended consequences and perverse incentives. And people may (will) be killed who otherwise would not have been as a result.

[defrost]

And your plan to deal with unintended consequences is what?

To avoid any legal assisted dying at all under any circumstances?

[0xbadc0de5]

To prevent innocent people from being killed as a result, yes. That does seem like the more ethical choice.

This is not about my opinion of whether an individual should be allowed to end their own life - which I'm agnostic of. This is about the normalisation and institutionalisation of such practice as inherently risky and devaluing of human life.

When you allow the state to end a life under any circumstances, you open the door to allowing the state to end a life under any circumstances. (aka - the slippery slope argument)

[tehwebguy]

Right, you are arguing a strawman