Originally Posted by Rutten

We've strayed from euthanasia into general suicide (an important distinction) but...

Everybody has their breaking point and people ought to be allowed to end things if they so desire. Obviously, euthanasia, since another party is involved, ought only be permitted in a situation where any reasonable person would agree that the life this person is leading is not a life worth living anymore.

I wouldn't bemoan Fritzl's daughter for killing herself, but obviously euthanasia is out of the question. Her suffering is eased by the removal of her father.

I'll flip it back around to you. You have a child (13 yrs old) and every waking moment, he/she is in enormous pain and cannot perform any personal care. Doctors know that a cure won't be technologically possible for at least another 20 years. Your child has asked you to allow him/her to die.

Constant, blistering pain - All day, everyday. Cannot eat, bathe or use a toilet without assistance. Are you going to keep your child alive (against his or her wishes) and condemn them to many more years of suffering on the basis that, someday, far in the future, a cure will be found?

Every action carries with it a moral weight. Does an action result in the proliferation of general wellbeing, or does an action result in the proliferation of suffering? This is utilitarianism.

I would argue that 30+ years of every waking moment being excruciatingly painful outweighs the ~50ish remaining years of a normal life (assuming a cure is actually developed).

(ofc, when the child is 18, it could always just choose euthanasia legally, but you're still adding 5 years of unnecessary suffering to it's life)