I don't think euthanasia is illegal in all countries since this has been practiced in most society for quite a long time. The more appropriate term would be immoral for some people who values life. I value life too, whether it's an animal's life or human's. Life for me is precious.

Although it hurts taking down someone's life through euthanasia, if someone is suffering too much already that they themselves are giving up, then I guess giving this person peace like what he/she wanted will be much better. It will hurt for the people who he/she will be leaving behind, but since there's no more chance for this person and he/she is giving up too because of the pain he/she's going through, then I guess euthanasia is not a bad choice at all. I value life... that's why I don't want to see suffering especially if the one feeling the pain is someone I truly care for.

But if the person doesn't want to give up, then this is a different case. If I could see that he/she is fighting hard despite the fact that there's no hope already, I think this person still deserves to live. Euthanasia won't be a choice. Instead, making this person's life feel better even for the short time he/she still has is a better option.

For pets, it depends on the situation. Though an animal won't be able to talk on what it wants, either to continue living or just die because of too much pain, you'd somehow tell this depending on the condition your pet is into. When you have a pet, there are instances where you understand each other despite the language barrier. If you cannot, you can just consult your vet about the condition. You can also ask second opinion from other vet if you want to be sure.

For both human & pets, if there would be no other choice but euthanasia, then at least spend quality time with them first before finally saying goodbye. It's hard to see something special pass away... but it's a lot difficult if you'll let your chance of making them happy for the last time pass you by as well.

There are a variety of reasons. The most compelling (to my mind, at least) is the fact that it opens up an area for people to be pressured into killing themselves by unscrupulous relatives. Perhaps Uncle Joe wants to stick things out, but his family doesn't want all that money to keep going to his treatments? It has the potential to make people who are already in pretty terrible situations easy prey for manipulative people who don't have their best interests in mind. They could even be murdered, if you allow relatives (or whoever has medical power of attorney) to make decisions about this. Even the normal grieving family who has the patient's best interests in their minds could have a terrible misunderstanding. Not everyone is as clear about their wishes in this regard as they could be, and it's possible for someone to project their own opinions on an incapacitated relative without realizing it.

There's also the question of whether it's right to allow someone to ask to be euthanized while they're, say, suffering from a major depressive episode. With proper treatment and/or medication and a little time, they might not see whatever is happening to them as cause to kill themselves. On the other hand, how long is it ethical to deny offering this "out" to people if they are truly suffering? How do you draw the line between a "good" reason to have yourself killed and a "bad" reason? Whose decision should that be? Is there an age range in which you're considered capable of making this decision for yourself? Can parents make it for their children?

Then there are the "moral" reasons. For the most part, I think most of these don't have a lot of relevance, as they mostly involve people thinking their own personal feelings on suicide are more important than those of the person contemplating it. Religious reasons don't work for me--frankly, it's not really a believer's place to be making that kind of decision on someone else's behalf, particularly if we're thinking of this as a legal issue. Religion should have no place in that discussion. At the same time, if euthanasia is allowed, it puts doctors (and nurses) in an ethically questionable position, which I do find to be problematic. Many, perhaps even most of them will see having any part in this (even referring a patient to a pro-euthanasia doctor) as being a violation of their oath. It's hard not to see actively killing somebody (even if they want it) as doing harm. Can you sue somebody for not providing this service (or a referral to someone who will)? Assisted suicide might be a little better, but even that is problematic. On the other hand, the medical community used to have similar problems with the withdrawal of life support (also an ethically complex issue), so perhaps there's room for opinions to change. This does seem to be a more direct and obvious contradiction of medical ethics, though. After all, in one instance medical personnel are allowing nature to take its course, and in the other they're actively causing death.

Overall, I would say that while many people are against it personally due to religious objections, I think the main reason it isn't allowed is that it's just too difficult to implement safely. Terminal patients and patients with chronic pain, mental health problems, etc. are already in highly vulnerable positions. If we make euthanasia a socially accepted response to difficult health situations, it has the potential to put too much pressure on people to go ahead and kill themselves when they might otherwise not have wanted to. It also would cause a lot of problems for the medical community, and perhaps even in areas like insurance. If euthanasia is an accepted medical "treatment" for an illness, what will that do to the likelihood of insurance companies paying for real treatments? One would hope public shame would keep them from pressuring terminal patients to go ahead and die without trying expensive life-extending treatments, but can you honestly say you're sure they would do the right thing?

I would like for there to be some sort of assisted suicide option available for patients (ideally after they've been assessed by a psychologist), but I'm just not sure if it will ever work well in the US. Oregon has taken the leap of allowing assisted suicide in some instances, and I think they've done a pretty good job of designing their policy. I know some studies have been done on its effects (and those in the Netherlands, which even allows euthanasia), but I would really like to see a lot more in-depth studies before the nation as a whole adopts similar policies. It will take a lot of proof before I'm convinced the benefits outweigh the risks.

Anyone who values life must take the stand that life should be preserved. On the opposite side, life may be dismissed based on values. We are into a value game not a religious right. By value game I mean quality or standard of life, those that should or not live.

Look around you and you will see others less fortunate and others who are more fortunate. There does not have to be a religious aspect to the judgment of value or quality. Religion and religious belief is a condition that adds value to some and not to others.

When talking of euthanasia being illegal we are talking of protecting people. Keeping euthanasia illegal is a mechanism of society to protect those that cannot protect themselves. When talking of putting animals down we are doing so more for the sake of convenience and cost.

I think that the same convenience and cost factor may apply to some cases of bed ridden or terminal patients. If somebody is in a terminal state and know they are in it, euthanasia should be a personal decision at to their fate. They should take care of themselves and kill themselves quietly.

If you are religious you will not do it, if you are not religious you might consider it. {The term euthanasia derives from two Greek words: eù, meaning ‘good’, and thanatos, meaning ‘death’} We all want a good death but at the same time we all have to deal with what we got and who we are.

It is a difficult decision for those that are being killed so they can have a good death. I think that we should not decide the life of others and that is not by itself a religious statement. Life should be preserved. If religion supports that that is great. If religion does not support that that is great as well. Religion is a factor not a condition for personal decision.

If you take euthanasia as becoming a society belief and a right you should consider some recent past history in Germany. {Eugenic euthanasia refers to the notorious Nazi programme code-named ‘Aktion T 4’ secretly conducted during World War II which was aimed at ‘selecting’, ie eliminating, the so-called Lebensunwertes Leben (life unworthy of life),}

Euthanasia is illegal because it protects life and those that cannot protect themselves.

Pogo

Frontline on PBS just did a story on Dignitas, a Swiss groups devoted to helping people end their lives legally. (Assisted suicide is legal in Switzerland). I encourage your watching it; it changed my views.

Here are the reasons why euthanasia should be illegal:

1. There really can be no safeguard in legalized euthanasia. One concrete example is what happened in Holland for euthanasia in Holland has been flouted. Dr. John Keown who has studied in great detail found that in 1990, 52% of the 10,558 cases of a doctor's intent to hasten death were done with no explicit request from patient. There are still many cases which makes voluntary euthanasia involuntary because it has been abuses. There has been no proposal that has been devised which could be a guarantee that this won't be abused.

2. Palliative care is an overlooked issue for what the terminally ill want is pain relief and not the end of life. There are 31,000 suicides annually in America and only 2-4% are terminally ill. Although new, palliative care has made great advances in recent years but is under utilised. A medical doctor has said that between 50 and 75% of cancer patient's pain is under treated by specialist. Palliative care if used can now relieve suffering in majority of cases and about 95% of all patients can find relief from palliative care.
There are many who work with dying people know that an overwhelming majority want their pain to be controlled but do not want to be killed.

I think that among the religious groups of people as well as a high majority of non-theists, there is general agreement that a human life has more dignity and worth than a mere animal. It has been shown through many studies that humans have what is called "free will" that is very much lacking in the rest of the animal kingdom and it puts us above them. Among the religious, we are considered to have an eternal soul and infinite worth, and our lives are God's gift and God's creation. Killing, in general, is taking the place of God and us deciding when to end a person's life instead of allowing Him to decide the right time. Euthanasia is, whether people like to hear it or not, the killing of another human being. It is very controversial for this matter because it could technically be considered down-right murder, whether there is "consent" by the to-be-killed or not.

In any case, you cannot just respect the wishes of people at all times. A man may wish to cheat on his wife, we all recognize this as a bad thing and it would be ridiculous to say that we should respect his wishes and let him do as he pleases. You could apply the same thing to things like murder, stealing, etc. You would not let a criminal go free just to respect his wishes. Am I saying that those who euthanize are criminals? That is up for individuals to decide with their own conscience, I suppose, since this is not an opinion forum.

The problem these days is that people seem to have more respect for a person's choice rather than a person's life. When the dignity and value of a human person is demeaned, all sorts of chaos ensues.

Anyways, I am not sure if you are looking for a legal, personal, spiritual, or judicial answer. But, it is one thing if a person is going to die without technological help and chooses not to receive help. It is another thing when a living person is starved to death against his or her wishes (which may or not be known such as the Terry Shiavo case). So I guess to get to the real basics, euthanasia is in essence killing another human being and killing is illegal. Therefore, euthanasia is also illegal.

I can think of 3 main reasons why euthanasia is illegal.

1) suicide is illegal,
i won't get into this tangent but basically if you are able to say, 'I want to be euthanised,' then you are committing suicide and it would be illegal for a hospital to assist you in that. That law needs to be changed first.

2) Confllict of interests.
THe government prefers to be neutral, and at most protect the rights of the victim (in this case the one being euthanised). Some people may feel that it is a conflict of interest if you allow your father to be euthanised and get a fat inherritance. You may argue that the father wants it, but then someone else may argue that your father is not in his 'right mind' at the moment and wouldn't want to die. The gonverment likes to make decions "beyound a reasonable doubt".
Insurance companies may see a conflict of interest. They don't want to pay your $100k policy any sooner than they have too. Many companies have an anti-suicide clause. If you committ suicide, your family gets nothing or a partial amount. They may consider voluntary euthanasia as suicide (refer to reason #1).

3) Hope. A lot of optomistic people have hope that 'a cure' may one day be found. That the guy in the coma will wake up. That miracles happen. And as i mentioned before, the government considers this (at the moment) 'reasonable doubt.' It is possible that you will get better. As long as you are alive, there is a chance that you will get better. No matter how much yu are suffering. If the government allowed everyone to die when the going gets rough... well the consequences may be huge.

So i guess the root of everything is that as long as suicide is considered immoral, and more importantly illegal, than euthanasia, especially voluntary, will be illegal. Either the definition of suicide has to be redefined, or guidelines will have to be set stating when 'reasonable doubt' can be conquered when considering "conflict of interest" and for lack of a better word, 'hope.'