I'm not really sure what point you're trying to make. If it were someone I knew, I would be upset, yes, and would pursue options for justice - which is, as I said, the more important aspect of such a system. Furthermore, even if my position changed if it were one of my loved ones, I wouldn't think my emotionally-charged thinking should be used to craft legislation.

If you're advocating for systems that cannot possibly be abused... good luck. Providing benefits to society often comes with avenues of potential abuse.

I'm advocating for not enabling a system that allows legalizing death. This is similar to people who are against the death penalty because it can and has been used to execute people who were later exonerated. "Move fast & break stuff because the benefits are worth the cost" is a better argument for almost any other policy than ones that explicitly result in death.

Tracing back, this one case of one case worker who suggested MAID to perhaps as many as five veterans .. did not result in death being "forced" upon any one.

The outrage over MAID being suggested as a viable option has resulted in even more scrutiny, oversight, and guard rails.

This is not the example that demonstrates abuse of the system.

> This is not the example that demonstrates abuse of the system.

I don't know how you can come to that conclusion. It's an example that demonstrates abuse, and "guard rails" (LOL) that are supposedly going to protect against future abuse.

"Legalizing death" isn't really accurate, isn't it? I mean, it's not illegal to die. And this isn't legalizing murder, as murder doesn't generally require the informed, prolonged consent of the person going to be murdered.

Death that isn't murder doesn't generally require someone else taking an action that kills you.

And while encouraging people to commit suicide may or may not be illegal depending on where you live, who it is, etc, it's generally not seen as moral.