>>263219209>>263220203If you ask most people how they feel about euthanasia, I think they would actually be quite accepting of the idea. It depends on how its framed.
People don't bat an eye or shake their heads whenever they read in the news about, say, family members deciding to pull the plug on a brain-dead person, they're likely to view it as a tragic occurrence that at least frees up doctors and nurses to tend to other patients. If the problem can't be treated, common consensus would be that a dignified death is better than a slow, painful one.
Or take extreme scenarios for example, like a hospital being shut away from the outside world because of a natural disaster, and doctors and nurses deciding to euthanise patients who will inevitably die from the lack of power and medical supplies. But you could argue the point of extreme scenarios is that there isn't really a right thing to do in such situations.
I guess to strike at the heart of the debate, it would be that consent and pain reduction is running headfirst into death prevention as was already brought up. Can people consent to dying? Sure, the same way they could consent to duels and self-harm. But if you bring up consent as a reason to keep doing self-harm, would anyone accept such an argument? To say death is free of pain is a warped way of framing it - you can't feel anything when you're dead. Some people are terrified of certain life-saving procedures or even medicine, and the generally agreed upon thing to do isn't to leave them be, or tell the parents that they have a right to not give their kids healthcare.
Is it dogmatic to hold preserving life over pain reduction and consent? Of course. So too would prioritising pain reduction and consent over life. Dogmatism isn't inherently wrong or right, it's arguably impossible to prove any truth without appealing to accepted assumptions. One size doesn't fit all, but that's not going to stop people from trying.