Also, I'd like to constructively challenge the idea of "enabling" something that someone is free to do. You're free to kill yourself, yes, nothing anyone can do about it. But is it good to help enabling it?

If yes, then we should have places where one can go and absolutely get destroyed by meth or fentanyl or whatever's your choice.

I'm afraid the only difference between both cases is the economic burden they cause or not. The one with drugs increases it, while euthanasia decreases it. That makes me suspicious.

Why would you think it's preferable to withhold medical services from someone who explicitly requested it, is sound of mind, has unbearable suffering (again, confirmed by two independent doctors whose actions are from the outset considered a criminal offence unless proven otherwise), and where there is no long term improvement possible? Why do you want to withhold medical services in that situation?

I read your argument and it seems like you're not actually considering the point of view from the woman who no longer wants to live.

Because "medical services" is an euphemism for killing, in this case.

You can read my other replies for more context, but what I see as a problem here is that all this will normalise death. By enabling it, we're one step closer of people resorting to this more easily, and having people that could recover just giving up early.

And yes, my stance is biased, I don't trust doctors that much.

But... it's not killing. Words matter. It's asking someone to help you die. And the doctors who help you are guilty by default, until proven innocent.

No one healthy and of sound mind will choose to die. It isn't called "survival instinct" for nothing. This will not normalise death, it will not become a fad to die just because it's easy to do so. Despite the US having a very widely available and quick way to commit suicide (guns), the suicide rate in the US is not so much higher than in Germany - where it's more difficult to obtain guns.

I think legalising euthanasia is an act of love. It prevents unnecessary suffering for those who suffer the most, but only if those who suffer explicitly request it and under extremely strict regulations - like they do in the Netherlands.

I think your position about this is typical, but it's also (I think) primarily reasoned from the perspective of society, and not from the perspective of someone who is suffering.

>this will normalise death

Death is normal. You are going to die. I am going to die. We are all going to die.

You mean Medically Supervised Injecting Centres ?

https://www.uniting.org/community-impact/uniting-medically-s...

These exist in a number of countries and are seen to have favourable outcomes:

https://adf.org.au/insights/medically-supervised-injecting-c...

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC314055/

Right, so the answer to my question apparently is yes.

If that's your position, there's no use in us arguing.

I differ, considering life as sacred, and worried though not surprised of how we're moving as a society from holding life as sacred, at least in appearance, to overtly disregarding it in this manner. On the other hand, as I mentioned in a different reply, I have a big difficulty trusting doctors and their "nothing else to be done".