Many people in your or your neighboring country now seem to be very surprised by cases opponents have warned about before, such as Tine Nys, or this grandma with dementia who was opposing the jab and had to be kept down by her family until her last moment. The family members likely feel confident and „rational“ about their murder because the procedure was backed by the local public discourse. (A cynic may see parallels to widow burning, which is also backed by some local clan discourse.)

With such cases in public awareness I don’t understand how the cases you translated here for us (thanks for that, btw) don’t lead you to the conclusion that there must be more research into palliative care, and instead that one should be allowed to put an end to a human life that is more suffering than living. You list graphic descriptions of situations where the first is not possible yet so the latter would likely have to apply, and I understand that - as I said, I’m aware of the complexity. But improving palliative care with dignity should still be the primary route.

That your legal floodgates are open now may prohibit a focus on palliative care research since it seemingly has already changed your national discourse quite a bit - which is another issue opponents have warned about. The Dutch / Belgian (and perhaps Canadian) discourse on euthanasia is an outlier in the world, and being on the outlier side is not automatically a good thing. It will derail even further and weaken more boundaries, and change how people act or feel are expected to act.