Honestly, If I were 90, completely invalid and had some horrible, wasting disease affecting my body, I would not request the right to die a bit early and spare myself some pain, I would bloody well demand it. Quality of life is more important than merely being alive, and keeping someone alive, against their wishes, in terrible agony, slowly fading away anyway, is quite frankly unethical. Modern palliative care not providing at least some legal 'way out' for people trapped in horrible situations like this is totally unacceptable. The only difference between killing someone and allowing someone to die when you could have aided them is philosophical, and of course down to personal judgement. If someone is dying, and there is flat out no chance of you or anyone being able to help, there is no ethical difference between consensually euthanizing them and allowing them to die in horrible agony the natural way, aside from the aforementioned horrible agony in between. So you could even say that it's more ethically permissible to consensually kill someone than it is to do nothing and let them die in extreme pain.
It is much different when you are the terminally ill or chronic pain sufferer. I am not saying anyone should run around killing others based on their own personal views which aren't substantiated but people who do not wish to live anymore should be given the legal right to do so with no lash back. I also believe that they should be allowed an assisted suicide...But only after it is determined through a court of law, that way anyone involved will be documented through the court and not held responsible on any level. It must all be laid out and agreed upon. Dr. Jack Kevorkian was a saint...Not satan. He allowed people to exit with their dignity, as they saw it.
Yeah, though, if you are merely preserving a person's life when you know they're about to die, just to save your own feelings. This especially applies to people who are at death's door and in a lot of pain. If they want to die, (as in, they are very near death), then you can't force them to edure the torment and live on, because you want to spare yourself some grief. Now, I 'm not sure whether saving your own feelings is qualified as immoral, because we all generally want to save our own feelings, but either way, it could possibly be presented as 'immoral' if that person we're struggling to keep alive is in pain, and wants to die. The counterargument is if that person actually wants to survive.
Mercy killing is still murder. If they wan't to do so give them a tool to kill themselves with.
If you kill you have the blood of taking someones life on your hands. If they are going to die, then mabye you can. But it is a very difficult situation.
No matter how painful they may be. It is the persons choice when to die. No one has the right to take another's life. If they choose not to die what gives you the right to say otherwise. Naturally people would want to survive so I say give them the chance, instead of pulling the plug.
It is the right thing to do. Saying that keeping people alive because we can't fully prevent death is saying we should not care about health at all, because people will end up dying anyways later in their life.
By this same argument, people should be left to die in accidents and disasters. Why bothering in trying to save them, if they will still die of old age after all?
Why saving a baby from a burning building? Why taking care of someone who got a cold? Why treating cancer?
If we take that argument and apply it to society, we will end up with a life expectancy of twelve years, maybe even less. Giving that very few people are fertile at age, we would become extinct in just a few years.