One of the other potential abuses (outside of the "God complex doctor" or "greedy vulturous relatives" situations) I can conceive is, what is the so-called 'line' for suffering? Now when that comes up, most people immediately jump to eugenics as being the next step after euthanasia becomes an accepted practice but I'm more concerned about the potential of it being used by those who are not so much dying physically as they are mentally. Mental illness and suicide are already heavily intertwined; what's to say there isn't a potential abuse in some patient of sound body but severe depression who begs for death from their doctor as a result, because they see themselves as terminal on a different level? I mean, yeah, that could potentially be fixed by imposing limits for euthanasia for only physical terminal illness cases...but then that raises the dilemma of "do the mentally ill not deserve the right to a painless death?"
Now, I don't think this applies to people who still have a chance to get better, mind you; people with supportive family and friend networks; future prospects; goals; etc. I'm talking people so hopeless and so far at the end of their rope that all they have left is literally enough to hang themselves with. If their suffering is just as bad as someone with a terminal illness, don't they deserve the same rights to die with dignity and without pain? If they attempt on their own and don't succeed, they could end up causing worse psychological/physical damage to themselves, which could only worsen their condition and suffering.
Do we limit it at physical pain only? Or do we include mental anguish? What about psychosomatic conditions? Where, exactly, on that sliding scale, do we draw the line?
(Note: I am actually in favor of euthanasia, if handled responsibly. And I personally think the suicidal should receive help/support to avoid that 'final solution' rather than be aided in it, but I still think this is a good ethical dilemma that should be addressed.)
