> I guess prolonging treatment is in the interest of for-profit hospitals as found in other countries

France does the same but has nationalized healthcare, so it does not seem motivated by profits. It puts pressure on the healthcare system and only brings additional suffering. We could change that, but implementing assisted death needs careful consideration and defeating politically the small subset of people that think life with extreme suffering is precious.

> but implementing assisted death needs careful consideration

Yes.

> and defeating politically the small subset of people that think life with extreme suffering is precious.

You don't need to defeat us. All you need is a clear-cut agreement between the patient and the doctor, preferably in advance for those who are physically unable to decide at the end, similar to a DNI. Between the patient and the doctor, and possibly the patient's family, it's no one else's business (though I still think second-party euthanasia of non-terminal persons is disgusting, and that they should commit suicide without involving a second party). It's when government or other third parties start getting involved that everyone should have an issue with euthanasia.

> All you need is a clear-cut agreement between the patient and the doctor,

Then you are not part of the group of persons I was pointing out. Is was thinking of people against it regardless of the conditions. Some form of consent is needed for euthanasia. How strong this consent should be (written agreement before? Or must explicitly tell the doctor right before the injection?) needs to be decided after thinking carefully about how to keep the law being useful while avoiding abuses. But right now euthanasia is fully illegal; the best one can get is starving to death.

Euthanasia per se is illegal in all US states, but assisted suicide is legal in a number of US states. https://deathwithdignity.org/states/

I actually am probably one of the one's you are pointing out. In that I don't want a government sanctioned process for this (it leads to a slippery slope in the countries it has been enacted in[1]). At best I'm basically in favor of decriminalization, not legalization, and not a standardized process that can be altered over time.

"By establishing a social policy that keeps physician-assisted suicide and euthanasia illegal but recognizes exceptions, we would adopt the correct moral view: the onus of proving that everything had been tried and that the motivation and rationale were convincing would rest on those who wanted to end a life.

Ezekiel Emanuel"

[1] - see point 6: https://haase.org.uk/history-of-euthanasia/

Also this case in Canada of a woman with MCS who couldn't get better housing away from the chemicals. It was easier to give her medical assistance in dying than to get her to a house or apartment free from other people's smoke and cleaning chemicals: https://www.ctvnews.ca/health/woman-with-chemical-sensitivit...

She's not the only Canadian case of it being easier to grant MAID than to get functioning health and welfare services. One person was granted it because he was about to become homeless.

You're assuming the person has enough function to commit suicide.

If you reread my comment more closely you'll see that I'm not. I list a couple of options, only one of which is suicide. I'm willing to tolerate various things that I consider repugnant, even though there is a limit.

I would be surprised if there exists a country where people never die like this. You would have to euthanize every single person who died of a long list of natural causes.

Maybe NK will implement mandatory euthanasia at 63 or something crazy.

This is from personal experience, but there is a difference between letting someone take 2 weeks to starve or die of dehydration, and big-letters "euthanasia". Sometimes the people who work in palliative care are nuanced enough to ease you out when your final days come. Where I live, euthanasia is not legal. But when my sister was dying from cancer she directly told her palliative meds guy "I watched my uncle gasp for two weeks. I'm not going like that. You hear me?"

When it came to it, she didn't. It still wasn't petty because death-by-cancer never is. She was extremely weak and thin and tired. But on her last day she spoke to everyone in the family, gave weak hugs, said goodbyes. I guarantee you that guy took away days (at least) of suffering. We all knew that. He knew that. She knew that. Nobody said it though.

And I think that's better than someone who can't afford to deal with a disability being asked if they're prefer to die than cost the state lots of money. Horror stories both sides of the nuance.

This is mostly how it works for most people who die like this in my country where Euthanasia is legal.

I made a similar comment already but I kind of agree. I’m not sure if it’s about profit it’s also about legal concerns. I think legally doctors are supposed to keep you alive until they can’t anymore?

No, truly, doctors are not legally required to keep people alive against their will. It’s just that you have to have made it clear in advance what kind of life-saving and comfort measures you want. You have to say “yeah actually I don’t want all that.” It’s hard on the doctors to watch people dying painfully with too much life support, too. They know what kind of death they want, and it’s not that. (As the article reflects.)