OP, thanks for a thoughtful, well set out thread.
a) Pain, suffering and distress (PSaD) are all apart of God's divine plan...
As my government 'allows' but does not 'enforce' any given religion, this one is out as a consideration.
I also want nothing to do with a god that inflicts suffering and distress on me for his amusement, but fortunately for my learning life path, I seem
to inflict more than enough on myself without his assistance lol.
I think one of the few most horrible pollutions of the religious philosophies of the world is the idea that god arranges suffering but for some reason
HE finds 'good.' That one may come out of bad situations with positives, doesn't mean the bad situations existed solely for the later positive.
b) PSaD are actually beneficial (in the long-term) in terms of building resilience and character...
We could argue PSaD has the opposite effect also, and that having a healthy life rather than at home/hospital in misery is better, I think this point
is shaky.
c) Deciding to take one's own life is still taking a life, which is intrinsically wrong.
More religion, since scientifically we are just biological tissue; but if we're going to use religion we might as well say that if one does not
really die but reaches (check one glorious alternative), it shouldn't matter.
d) Those stating they wish to take their own lives are usually not mentally fit to make such an extreme decision.
That is nearly always true. However, there simply must be something that makes life worthwhile and when pain and lack of hope outweigh that, the whole
point of getting up (or even breathing) is lost.
To be more literal: we forcibly extend the misery of innocent people to satisfy our selfish need to put our own fears of death above their enduring
agony.
e) PSaD - whether physical, mental or both - can be overcome through time.
Depends on the situation. There are plenty of conditions, diseases etc. that are merely going to get worse.
I'm assuming that we are never discussing assisted suicide for situational or emotional reasons, but always for physical reasons, btw.
f) We are all ONE and any act that harms a part of the collective whole affects all that are connected.
I agree but it must join the other religious stuff above.
g) Euthanasia might be encouraged by those surrounding the individual for the wrong reasons, e.g. a written will/insurance policy or extreme
hatred of that person.
Possible, but a good reason for arranging things so there is third party counseling and a time span required first, and some issues related to
inheritance should probably be specialized here.
a) Euthanasia puts an end to pain, suffering and distress (PSaD)
Primary one I'd think.
b) Euthanasia extinguishes the PSaD felt and experienced by those surrounding the individual.
I don't consider that an argument for it. I consider how other people feel to be irrelevant. It's solely an issue of the individual in question to
me.
... If the condition is irreversible and will lead to death in 1 week, 12 months or 5 years, why make the individual suffer for no
reason?
Psychology and circumstance and pain are likely to greatly distort the relevance of the time period (in one direction or the other), but then again,
physical pain and lack of quality of life are just about everything.
f) Taking one's life in a planned systematic and consensual context avoids the chance that they will take their own life in a public place
which is likely to be sudden and barbaric in execution.
g) The less resources spent on prolonging the lives of those whom are terminally unwell, the more resources available to help those who need help and
are not terminally unwell.
Agreed but these are issues of others I don't consider relevant to the question which is only for the individual.
I think some things could be added to your list:
* Soylent Green's "lovely environment with a peaceful slipping away" experience gives people the ability to make death a lovely thing with
planning, instead of a surprise painful trauma.
* Allows slight needed population reduction, sometimes of those most expensive to society (for medical reasons).
* Could maximize harvesting of critical biological components which could help others to live.
1) How do I define a life?
I'm a mystic so my definitions far exceed anything reasonable already lol. I don't even kill bugs generally.
2) Is Euthanasia morally justifiable in certain cases?
I believe the question should be up to the individual, so I don't feel that the issue of morals should come into it. I could do all kinds of things
to my own body that I'd get arrested for doing to someone else's.
I don't think it should ever be allowed for others to do "to" someone, although I believe in very tightly controlled situations, 'assistance'
could be given to allow the process to be medically supervised and painless.
It is a problematic argument to kill fetals for convenience and animals for coats but not be willing to let someone in hideous chronic pain kill
themselves to end their suffering.
3) Should Euthanasia be legalised?
I feel iffy about it, not because I have any issues with it inherently, but because anything government is involved in will be bureaucratically
screwed up in every possible way, and if there's one more thing I don't want government having the ability to screw up, it's how-when-why to kill
people openly.
5) What are the moral implications for the person who assists the individual with their suicide?
There are implications for soldiers and cops shooting people even when it's part of their job and genuinely self defense, and they have to deal with
those repercussions of being part of the death of someone. This doesn't seem to be too well recognized (probably because people don't want to think
about it, and simply cannot do so when in the midst of it for their own sanity and survival, but years often decades later, it often catches up with
people psychologically, at least my soldier friends). I think this may be an issue even when the death is a huge favor to someone and done out of
love.
My own spiritual views bias here, as I consider involvement with the end of a life to have energetic repercussions, although, so do many things...
that can be part of life, this being part of others' death. I don't consider it without effect, but I would be willing to take on that effect for my
own reasons, just as soldiers do for example. I consider this almost a strange form of the old sin-eaters, if you recall that tradition; sometimes a
whole category of people who 'take it on' for everyone else; sometimes just an individual who does.