I'm all for making people's lives better. But people deserve the choice of what treatment they will or won't accept. That's what informed consent is about. We don't force surgeries on people just because they have a good prognosis; the person still has to consent to the surgery (if they are capable).

Even if there is a treatment with a very good prognosis that could magically make you happier, you deserve the right to say "no" anyway. So let's absolutely make sure somebody is informed and of sound mind before we put euthanasia on the table. But let them have agency over their own life after that.

There are some difficult philosophical questions here. If someone has an ailment, that is causing their mind to think euthanasia is the answer, but if they had the treatment to the ailment, they would no longer think so, are they of sound mind? I'm not sure where the line is on that, and i think its far from obvious.

Agreed. Likewise though, there's an ethical dilemma the other way: Is it acceptable to force treatment on someone?

These are not easy questions and while I personally believe that assisted dying legislation will prevent a lot of needless suffering, I also believe there will be people effectively killed by this who could have otherwise had fulfilling happy lives but couldn't see the path out of the woods or were unable to make that journey.

Feel it is likely you are over estimating modern medicine’s ability to judge if someone is of sound mind.

At some point, you just accept that people get to make important choices about themselves, and will sometimes make ones that don't necessarily make sense.

I thought the Canadian standard required that the problem be incurable.