The socialist ideally espouses the community involvement in the administration of government, but the reality is a narrow range of the powerful elites excercising power on 'behalf' of the masses.
In this particular subject of euthanization, the 'moral responsibility' buck is being passed onto the individuals (not 'the' individual that is being euthanized, of course) to make the decision for purposes of legal theatrics only. Only in this way can a 'legitimate' government catapult foward the idea of permissable killing outside of legal punishment or justified self-defense. In fact, the 'state' has already made its inroads in that this form of killing is legal at all. The 'caregivers' are only window-dressing participants in what already amounts to socially sanctioned killing.
In the end, the state will merely take the 'consent' element away from individuals and begin it's own pogroms of deciding who will live and die. Think that's too far off the mark? What will happen when further budget constraints hamper medical care far worse than their overburdened socialist medical system already is? What kind of legal case will be made for a man needing a kidney transplant and the family across the street is seeking the same procedure for a retarded child that needs the same procedure?
It will all come down to dollars and cents since moral sense is no longer involved. After that, mob rule will triumph since the rights of the individual went out the door with the first victim of socially sanctioned killing.
And that will happen soon since a huge percentage of Medicare payments (about 70%) are made to individuals in their last few months on this earth. Since medical care is getting more expensive and people are living longer the result is obvious: difficult moral/value decisions will have to be made in increasing numbers.
What kind of legal case will be made for a man needing a kidney transplant and the family across the street is seeking the same procedure for a retarded child that needs the same procedure?
There are a few more facts needed here to make a good decision (legal or moral) but if virtually all things were equal and the man had a family depending upon him for support, both morally and economically it would make sense for him to receive the transplant.
It will all come down to dollars and cents since moral sense is no longer involved.
I don't believe so. These decisions must involve both elements. Medical care is not unlimited and/or free. You seem to be saying that to be totally fair and moral, everyone should receive the medical care they need no matter what the circumstances. But since everyone cannot receive the medical care they need, to be fair no one should get it. That won't happen so the process will be necessarily unfair. Difficult value decisions must be made in this life and it is very important who makes those decisions. I am in favor of those most closely involved to make the decisions - like the family along with the treating physician. You seem to want a particular religious view (your interpretation of "sanctity of life") to dictate what medical decisions are made for others. That is not what our constitution prescribes.