Limitations of legal euthanasia

The argument

The objection this argument answers is the slippery-slope one: that legalising euthanasia opens the way to killing people who never asked to die. The reply is that voluntary euthanasia, as it is actually proposed, is defined so as to exclude that possibility. The definition does the first part of the work. Voluntary euthanasia concerns only patients capable of making decisions for themselves; it does not concern the mentally impaired, children, or people deemed unwanted by society or government, like criminals and minorities. The request must come from the patient in question, which means the procedure cannot be initiated by a relative, a physician or a state. A measure that can only be triggered by the person it affects is not a mechanism that can be turned on anybody else. That distinction is what separates it from the historical comparison usually invoked. Nazi Germany's policies were imposed on people categorised as unworthy of life, without their consent and against their interests — killings ordered rather than requests granted. Since legalized euthanasia could only be requested by the patient in question, it cannot be argued that it would lead to similar results. The empirical record is offered to close the gap between principle and practice. The reality of legal euthanasia in places like the Netherlands and Belgium does not give credence to such fears: these are jurisdictions where the law has operated for years under public scrutiny, and the predicted descent has not materialised. What holds the line in practice is procedure. Strict procedures and mental reevaluation of a patient — establishing that the request is settled, informed, and genuinely the patient's own — can limit such risk to the minimum or even prevent it altogether. The danger is therefore a reason to regulate euthanasia carefully, not a reason to refuse to legalise it.

Context

One of the major arguments against the legalization of euthanasia are fears of abuse of said practice against the most vulnerable in society. The most commonly cited example in that context are policies of Nazi Germany, where under the policy of "kinder euthanasia" (child euthanasia) the totalitarian state killed severely mentally and physically handicapped children.

Premises

Counter-arguments

The body of research concerning legal euthanasia in places like the Netherlands is not as clear-cut as proponents of said practice claim it is. According to John Keown, a renowned professor of ethics and leading voice against the legalization, there are reasons to believe that legal euthanasia is abused by physicians. Furthermore, proponents of the legalization cannot guarantee that in the future some government wouldn't be tempted to abuse the practice for its own goals.

Rejecting the premises

[Rejecting P3] Who should be able to request the legal euthanasia is hard to pinpoint from a legal point of view and as such is open to different interpretations.