Systemic Euthanasia

[Maxmars]

...

Thank you kindly for expanding on the discussion and entertaining my thoughts.

You and I differ in opinions about certain things, but I think we both recognize the elements of the idea of the thread premise.

I do accept that our government, and certainly others, are beset by the human baggage inserted into the mix of what 'should be' and 'what is.'  I understand that solvency is not the same as existence.  While we may not use the same terminology for some things, they are nevertheless equivalent.  

For example, I do not subscribe that businesses have a purpose of 'continued existence' at their core, I believe the singular objective is more akin to a specific type of business... the corporation.  Most business outside of the corporate, is conducted for a more pragmatic reason, to engage in profitable commerce supporting those beneficiaries like owners and employees.  The profit has an economic use, theoretically made 'useful' to the community it serves (barring money-hoarding, of course.)

Governments are tools of a collective population which grants it "authority" to use force under the guise of their will.  I suspect that most citizens are not particularly satisfied with their government employees using voter trust as a tool to make themselves richer, or more powerful.

But since the act of euthanasia involves death, we are now offering trust that such a life-ending act is being done in accordance with the will of the people, not some eugenicist ideologues, or as a function of cabalistic sociopathy.  It is odd that whenever such subjects are to be discussed by potential "political' celebrities they immediately rush to extreme situations to justify the idea... never once acknowledging that the extreme is not the norm.

It seems that only a constitutional restriction can provide the safeguards you mention... but in practice, many people "in" government already openly struggle and rail against constitutional restrictions to imposed authority and control - is if such power was their own personal property.  With the advent of "government contracts" they conduct their criminal mischief via proxies ... as we have seen often... but it never seems to resolve itself in justice.

The problem with any theoretical abuse of euthanasia policy is simple... once dead, there is no redressing the act.  There can be no justice for a wrongful death... where would that leave us, impotent revenge?

The most troublesome aspect of this matter is "trust."  Doctors, lawyers, and all the middlemen in this field have effectively spent theirs getting rich, and richer... returning precious little to the trust givers.  Now in the context of euthanasia, we must put extreme trust in "deciders" to act in bringing about the death of a citizen...  "deciders" that no one really chose for their wisdom and thoughtfulness...

MM