(someone else answering) my reason for opposing it is that it creates opportunity for abuse, for example like pushing older relatives toward that decission because someone doesn't want to care for them.
What you’re looking for here is protections of the elderly against abuse via coercion to act counter to their best wishes. This is a separate concern that needs to have laws and parameters around it.
Virtually anything can be “an opportunity for abuse.” Look at the internet. That’s not a good reason at all to prevent it, it’s a reason to outlaw and protect against the abuse.
Both in isolation seem like laudable aims for the State, but lead us in opposing direction on this issue.
If they can’t, do they really own their computer?
If you don’t find that particular analogy salient surely you can think of others. How about just driving itself in cars that can go faster than the speed limit? The point is there are a multitude of things that provide benefit and also the opportunity for abuse, but rarely, virtually never, does this justify forgoing the benefit.
Again, the law you're after here is preventing elder abuse. This is indeed something we should pay great attention to and try as best we can to carry out the wishes of the elderly. This abuse is no uncommon, even if it's comparatively benign by changing estate inheritance at the end of life for instance.
It really has nothing to do with assisted suicide.
Yet, we don’t shut down every coal power plant because it’s useful just as we don’t ban cars etc. The benefits of assisted suicide are similarly significant and therefore worth it.
You're saying this as if we're talking about involuntary euthanasia.
The fact is for me, I'd rather that it's available and legal for those that want it even if the sad reality is, someone, someday will abuse this.
What all the data says is that most of assisted suicide cases are people suffering from horrible incurable diseases.
All Dutch euthanasia procedures are documented publicly. The documents include patient's condition, circumstances surrounding the request, assessments from multiple physicians, and the commission's judgement. They do not include the identity of the patient, for obvious reasons.
One gives you a choice, the other one doesn't. If you want to prevent abuse, make it difficult in the law. Restrict it to advanced directives, require a psychological assessment, etc.
The scenario you're describing is the easy one — if I have people who love me enough that they're willing to care for me, I wouldn't feel forced into making this decision and there's no risk of abuse. If anything, I might feel pressured to stick around to avoid hurting them.
GP's argument is trickier: Callous family members might want to force me into accepting assisted suicide against my will, because they don't want to care for me. My point was precisely that, in that position, I wouldn't want to be cared for by those callous relatives, and might choose assisted suicide of my own accord anyway.