However, the very same concept of religious freedom means that no person should ever have his or her rights defined against his or her will by the religious beliefs and values of other people. In this country, the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution expressly prohibits the state from imposing religion on any individual; yet that is exactly the situation to the extent that legislators ever oppose euthanasia on "religious" grounds. Incidentally, the exact same principle applies to abortion to the degree that the issue involves religious beliefs about when human life "begins."
Conclusion
Supporting the right of the individual to choose euthanasia does not mean that there should be no safeguards to protect mentally unstable patients from rash decisions or to prevent abuse of the process by others for...
The state has every right to establish reasonable tests and safeguards to limit euthanasia to individuals who are mentally competent to make the decision for themselves. Beyond that, however, it is difficult to support an ethical objection to euthanasia. Personal privacy is a fundamental right that the Supreme Court determined "emanates" from the Constitution forty years ago (whether Donald Trump is aware of that or not). Furthermore, the concept of patient autonomy is a fundamental focus of modern medical ethics. Ultimately, a person of sound mind has the private autonomous right to make decisions about his or her own life or death without the interference of the state and regardless of the opinions, beliefs, or values of strangers. Euthanasia should be an absolute right of every mentally competent individual.
