I am for it - on the grounds that MANY are made to suffer unnecessarily so as to avoid a FEW perhaps being wrongly or feloniously dispatched.
To my mind the moral high ground adopted by the opponents is a stark, barren crag of stubbornness - covered in mists of self-deceiving rhetoric. If every single life is SO 'sacred' as to never be extinguished by the hand of another - how come we go about our every day lives as cheerfully as we can, knowing so many millions die every year unnecessarily - through hunger, thirst or the want of available medical treatment ?
Inaction is just as culpable as direct action as regards causation of death - so why the constant justification of prolonging agony - just to delay the inevitable ? The logic baffles me.
The 'slippery slope' lobby have no firm foundation on which to argue - a sharp knife was a great invention for early man - enabling the skinning of hides for clothing and shelter, and the butchering of meat. But what would one have said to Og McGog, the tribal wise man, witch doctor who asserted "This is a slippery slope and must be banned...one day evil people might use knives to kill fellow human beings !!!"
Darwinism explains we have an innate, driven 'life force' - an overriding, instinctive propelling to survive - often against the most horrendous hardships. But there comes a time when it's meet, just and humane - to terminate unnecessary suffering. Just as we so readily consent to do - with dumb animals.
And also do with abortion - terminating 'life' of the as yet unborn - often for the simple reason of financial or social expediency.
And also do in Hospices - where huge pain-relieving doses of drugs are administered - enough to kill a horse (and many human beings) - in order to ensure a 'comfortable', dignified death. Termination under another guise.
OF COURSE it's a Moral Maze of Byzantine complexity - but I fundamentally disagree with the 'Preservation of life at any cost' lobbyists - if their case had rock solid foundations, shouldn't they all be out feeding the hungry and thirsty ?
Rather than waving banners on behalf of those for whom an accelerated death would come as a blessed relief ?
(With ALL due empathy, understanding and well-wishing for Buddha above.)