Your position isn't very well thought-out for purposes of addressing the concern at hand: ending an individual's suffering with dignity and under their own terms, and returning autonomy and control to them and their loved ones over the conditions of their death.
Actually my position addresses that exact thing. Your position is my position but with the requirement that professionals be employed. That's the entirety of the disagreement - should 3rd party professionals be allowed into the process of people committing suicide (humorous since suicide is to kill oneself and adding others would change that).
Yes.
Generally an average person has the capacity to best decide whether they want to keep living their life. That's their unique existential specialty. Knowing how to do that comfortably and without great pain for them and their family is not something a layman is trained in.
Just as a sick person is competent to determine that they need to go see a doctor, but isn't competent to then diagnose and treat themselves.
Well, that's not accurate. Plenty of sick people diagnose and treat themselves without much training. But that's only secondary to my point. Given everything we know about mental health, there is no reason to believe that these people are even competent to make that decision. So you're arguing that someone who has received extremely bad health related news, is operating out of a position of fear, is competent to determine that the best treatment for their health related issue is to kill themselves. But the competence to analyze and reach such a permanent treatment option suddenly disappears as soon as they've made the decision.
As far as the finality and "ripe for abuse" arguments, that's why we have procedural safeguards and Hippocratic oaths. And they already exist and are extremely stringent. Beyond those existing safeguards, you are also (for the typical case) adding an added protective condition of affirmative consent.
But I mean...more normatively, if your disposition toward a terminally ill person having to writhe in pain and suffer and scar their family, as opposed to peacefully pass in a controlled environment, is "so what?" I do not know what to tell you.
Spare me the empty emotional arguments about writhing in pain. Someone could opt for euthanasia even if they have no pain. If that's the basis of your argument then you're ignoring the breath of the issue simply to focus on those circumstances that fit a very limited use - patients with extreme physical pain.
So, I'll pose the same question to you that I posed to Neph to illustrate why I think it's a poor policy to involve professionals, which necessitates additional regulation.
2 patients with the same terminal disease. Patient A is told he has 8 years to live. Patient B is told he has 3 years to live. The law says you only get euthanasia at 5 years or less? Why should Patient A wait 3 years before he can obtain the same treatment as Patient B?
Let's say your response is to extend the time line to 10 years? Well, the same question comes up when the patient has 13 years to live.
Now imagine that the patient is a minor. Let's make them 15 - old enough to make their own medical decisions.
Explain to me how regulating the act of suicide facilitates people doing what they want with their lives. You're thinking "Let the people decide if they want to see a professional." But that's still short-sighted because the diagnose and potential treatment options are going to start with the professional. Very few people determine that they have a terminal disease on their own. So the professional is now in the middle of it whether they want to be or not. And if they're legally allowed to administer euthanasia then they're going to be obligated to tell their patients about all available responses.
I think that's a can of worms that requires far more thought than "But some people are in pain and their families will be scarred by the exposure." No more scarred than if they think the doctor persuaded the patient to commit suicide...which can't be refuted since the patient is dead and can no longer explain their choices.