Oi, if my family members were around, I would be in extreme pain and suffering with very little to no chance of recovery. I guess that would make me a candidate for euthanasia aye?
But if that were the case would you really want them to handle your Euthanasia? Don't give them the pleasure. I'm sure you'd have other methods available.
What if a person is involved in an accident and enters into a vegetative state, without any prior discussion of Euthanasia. Would they have to remain in that state, or would the power to make the decision fall to close family members, despite the absence of any meetings/documentation giving them the right to make such a decision?
My issue with the argument that euthanasia should primarily be available for those in a vegetative/unresponsive state is that very few people expect to be in such a state, or make preparations for if it happens. As such, they wouldn't be able to take advantage of any euthanasia services available, because of the safeguards in place to protect them.
I agree with everything you said, which raises a major problem with the safeguard I envisioned although I did so assuming that one would make such preparations. You could even roll it out as some sort of hospital health care plan or as a section in your Will to make it pseudo-compulsory to combat that situation as maybe even some advertising (although that'd be quite grim "make preparations to get your family members to pull the plug, because you might become a vegetable tomorrow!").
All in all, I felt that the situation of not having those preparations in order wasn't the issue - just whether Euthanasia is right or wrong. I just added that extra bit because it's something that came across my mind as I was typing. Although it is related and definitely of importance if Euthanasia were legalised, it is not the major concern at the moment.
On the other hand, I think compulsory Euthanasia is a bad idea. It's a whole playing God thing and we have that enough with death penalty, etc, where it is "deserved" but if you're just killing people because they're old or have no hope of recovery (says the doctor) then that's some major moral and ethic violations right there. Doctors are only people, they make so many mistakes and many times they tell people they can never walk again or miss a cancerous tumour in an X-Ray (both have happened to people close to me) yet the person gets up and walks again or tells the doctor "no there is definitely something there" and turn out to be right. Another person should not be the judge of another's life (unless prior agreements were made, to save myself from contradicting myself).
