I agree completely Cherful. My ethical stance sits quite similarly.

Ozpen- well, the full logical consequences of the "choice" in question is simple;

1- The patient's choice will result in being euthanized and dead as a result, or choosing to continue without it in their current state. No, it really is that simple- they choose to get treatment to end their life or they don't bring it up and refuse the option if proposed.

2- If granted permission, the euthanizer would THEN, and ONLY then, have the right to kill that person. If not granted permission, that person would be committing murder just like in any other situation where the person they killed did not grant permission in any form.
If you are so concerned about nurses and carers being granted the rights, grant it exclusively to a separate medical practitioner (perhaps as a separate license), along with regulations about conduct of the practitioner regarding suggesting it etc.
In fact, on three posts I have given you plenty of alternatives which you conveniently neglect to address.

You see, if a person were open-minded about the issue, but concerned about the specific 'slippery-slope' implications, they would want to discuss the alternative proposals to prevent it- you don't, despite many chances to do so. It seems you are opposed to Euthanasia on principle.
As long as you continually fail to try a little harder to analyze the problem beyond the old 'if we make it legal doctors will start arbitrarily killing patients for some reason' rubbish without even entertaining anything deeper to get around the problem, don't be surprised if nobody feels that is a good enough reason to deny what 80% consider a basic right.

I'll just leave this here:

Angels on the sideline,
Puzzled and amused.
Why did Father give these humans free will?
Now they're all confused.

Don't these talking monkeys know that
Eden has enough to go around?
Plenty in this holy garden, silly monkeys,
Where there's one you're bound to divide it.
Right in two.

Angels on the sideline,
Baffled and confused.
Father blessed them all with reason.
And this is what they choose.
And this is what they choose...

Monkey killing monkey killing monkey
Over pieces of the ground.
Silly monkeys give them thumbs,
They forge a blade,
And where there's one
they're bound to divide it,
Right in two.
Right in two.

Monkey killing monkey killing monkey.
Over pieces of the ground.
Silly monkeys give them thumbs.
They make a club.
And beat their brother, down.
How they survive so misguided is a mystery.

Repugnant is a creature who would squander the ability to lift an eye to heaven conscious of his fleeting time here.

Cut it all right in two

Fight over the clouds, over wind, over sky
Fight over life, over blood, over prayer,
overhead and light
Fight over love, over sun,
over another, Fight...

Angels on the sideline again.
Benched along with patience and reason.
Angels on the sideline again
Wondering when this tug of war will end.

Cut it all right in two
RIGHT IN TWO!

Right in two...

King Hazza,

You wrote: "You see, if a person were open-minded about the issue, but concerned about the specific 'slippery-slope' implications, they would want to discuss the alternative proposals to prevent it- you don't, despite many chances to do so. It seems you are opposed to Euthanasia on principle".

You write as though I'm not the one being open-minded. You are just as closed-minded as I am. You don't want to see the historical examples I have given as reasons why the "slippery-slope" cannot be contained.

I don't accept your view that euthanasia is treatment, but it is the killing of a human being who is not an animal.

No Ozpen I am much more open minded, because I at least could give examples and solutions to counter your 'historic examples' of the "slippery slope" of which you could not even elaborate upon.

Furthermore, its clear you really cannot grasp the concept very strongly either.
Euthanasia IS killing someone WHO REQUESTS TO BE KILLED in a humane manner. What? Did you think we didn't know that? Or is it too hard for your to comprehend? (if it is, then maybe you really shouldn't be weighing in on the issue)

Anyway, I'm starting to get bored- we're starting to run around in circles as you continually get confused or let passion take over.
And really, I'm quite happy to call it off unless your next post is different and more insightful- (more a fair warning than an expectation) and I'm quite confident to leave and let others read the posts between us so far.

We may have a right to life but we don't have a duty to live for as long as we possibly can. Once the process of dying has begun a person in their right mind should be allowed to call it quits when he or she wants to. (And yes Pope-o-philes may extend their suffering in exchange for a favourable outcome in the afterlife)