I beg to differ with you, Felicity. You have to think Euthanasia as a medicine to believe that it is not a suicide. You kill yourself in suicide but you release yourself from enormous physical and mental trauma in Euthanasia. Imagine what would you do if you see a person screaming in agonizing pain? First off, you will try to cure the person, right? You will try your very best to save that person using newest of the new technologies, surgeons, medicines, you name it whatever you can. Everyone will do that. Of course we are considering here an ideal scenario where financial constraints and all other practical hurdles do not apply. Ok, now consider the case when you know that no technology, surgeon or medicine can save the person and he will have to bear the pain all by himself until he dies. Then you will know you have no other option. Life is not all about principles my dear Felicity. Sometimes you have to look upon things in pragmatic ways. I have seen goats being slaughtered back in Nepal, probably you have too. Can you imagine leaving a goat to die all by itself after its neck is cut by more than half? Do you dare to listen to the scream of the dying goat until it dies? Forget about humans. No one can overvome the trauma of death especially when you know you are dying. Now comes the question that DT and few other people raised. How do we look upon the priorities to know which case needs euthanasia and which does not. Thats a good question actually.To answer that, I will say if the patient is under coma (a severe form of unconsciouness) for substantially long period of time and technolgies do not see the patient getting any better in the future should be a PROSPECTIVE candidate for euthanasia. Of course it should require full consent of the patient's immediate family members. But if it involves constant physical pain and trauma, then the decision might not need the consent as well.