But safeguards must be put in place to prevent people with a history of depression or mental diseases to be approved, it's simply an impossible decision for the state to make even if it would legitimately benefit some of them.
But safeguards must be put in place to prevent people with a history of depression or mental diseases to be approved, it's simply an impossible decision for the state to make even if it would legitimately benefit some of them.
Patients aren't always rational actors. In the US at least, doctors have < 25 minutes per person. There are well documented biases in medicine (try getting your tubes tied as a single woman) and my concern is that it very easily veers into eugenics territory. If we can't treat something why not screen for it in utero and terminate pregnancies with appreciable odds of developing terminal or chronic diseases with no known cures?
That's an option that always exists. I simply have a (much) higher threshold than you in regards to a state killing its own citizens.
This sort of framing is not helping the discussion at all.
I'm not sure how you structure this limitation but bottom line is anyone with significant experience of their own mental illness who doesn't want to live with it anymore shouldn't have to.
If you equate a person's rational choices with everything that comes out of their mouth, then you will euthanize a whole lot of mentally troubled or people.
I'm not even sure it's possible to divide the world between "mentally ill" and "mentally well". And if you could, I'd be inclined to say almost anyone who has been in serious chronic pain for years cannot possibly be considered "mentally well". Pain takes its own toll.
And dependimg the disease condition of the bipolar suferrer yes. Depending upon their stability which varies heavily from case to case and individual to individual. Would you want to do so at the peak of mania or the trough of depression, probably not.