Dr. Thomas Finegan:

As a matter of reason they would be orientated towards expansion, whether it be people taking challenges or the law overlooking what is happening or the judiciary interfering or legislators considering future amendments 12 or 18 months down the line.

The rationale has been directed on a path towards greater expansion such that those who try to limit it run up against the very reasons for introducing the law in the first place. They run into the questions of coherence and arbitrary discrimination and the problem of not having a stable, rational basis for excluding persons who wish to have euthanasia access. This is by no means a theoretical proposal on my part; it is very well backed up by the fact of how legislation has proceeded after its introduction. Even in Oregon, which has made a concerted effort at one level to be restrictive – through restricting to cases of terminal illness – we still see within the public data instances where chronic illness is passed as a justifiable ground for euthanasia. A concept that has been alluded to is that of someone thinking the value of his or her life is eroding or the idea of life's value diminishing according to the views of the person whose life is entailed. That could apply to anyone, whether terminally ill or not. There are four reasons offered that together justify euthanasia access, and individually and together they run counter to restricting euthanasia access to cases of six months' terminal illness or even to physical suffering.