Comment by imtringued

So you're telling me Alzheimers is a death sentence? Also, what is the minimum nuisance that should lead to someone's death? Because that is the problem with the euthanasia obsession.

At some point everything indirectly leads to euthanasia and society is not built for that at all. Everything you do might or might not lead to someone's euthanasia, which means you are liable for their death.

Let's say we can predict school shooters before they shoot and give them an euthanasia to save lives. If bullying or encouragement causes someone to start shooting up a school, then the latent shooter will die before they do their shooting, but it also means that the instigator is a murderer themselves, because in the absence of instigation, no crime would be committed and no euthanasia would be necessary.

Since it is probably not possible to assign liability of a euthanasia to a single individual, because multiple people contributed to the outcome, the liability will be shared. Ten people being involved means each has committed 10% of a murder, meaning that they should receive 10% of a life sentence. Are you ready to serve a cumulative year in prison spread throughout your life to account for indirectly causing euthanasia?

Note that this problem isn't necessarily unique to euthanasia. The problem applies to any cure all solution. (Think of series like "Common Side Effects")

If you punch someone's face in, but cure it with a blue mushroom, was it really a crime, since their face is intact? And yet, more punching happens as a result of the existence of the panacea, which is why there needs to be a punishment for making someone dependent on the panacea.