Dr. Thomas Finegan:

Any of the language I used in my statement or submission is language reflected in court judgments and writings of bioethicists, including pro-euthanasia bioethicists. Various important issues were raised. Much of this comes down to the question of how to draw a line that allows euthanasia only in cases of terminal illness. I have challenged the idea that any such line is non-arbitrary and is coherent.

In response, Dr. McKeown O’Donovan justified the line by stating that outside of terminal illness, it is possible that life might improve. It is worth testing that justification against the four basic rationales offered for allowing any euthanasia at all. Those four basic rationales are: respect rational choice, autonomy, minimise harm and the idea that life’s value can diminish according to the views of the person whose life it is. None of those four rationales fits with the idea that we ought to restrict euthanasia just to cases of terminal illness. Each of those rationales individually, and more so collectively, justify-----