I wish more countries recognized the ultimate and inviolable right to self ownership. If we aren’t free to destroy ourselves if we so desire, we aren’t actually free.
We don’t require a medical reason to enhance or build our bodies, we don’t need one to damage or destroy them.
I’m already allowed to eat fried foods 10 times a day and chainsmoke and do it slowly and painfully; if that is legal then anyone should be allowed to do it in a quick, painless, and dignified fashion.
Should it be illegal for the doctor to deny me an amputation that I ask for? After all, I should be "free to destroy myself" absent any justification?
Not in a dignified, foolproof way. E.g. can you go to a pharmacy and get a dose of morphine that will kill you with certainty? You can't, in most jurisdictions.
Forcing other people to deal with the trauma of cleaning up your bloody remains after you jump off a window isn't exactly compassionate either.
Give people a clean way out, even if you don't want it for yourself.
I am not sure that we "should be free" to end our life as you say. Sure, we did not have any say about coming to life but I think that if you don't have any incurable disease that causes you significant pain, you can always find something that will make life worthwhile. Unless you are born in Northern Korea or some country that restricts your freedom.
They could die at any time. This is an elaborate show by someone who needs to be told “no” and given a clear direction.
No health professional is being forced to assist in an euthanasia against their will.
Is it so hard to believe that all the parties involved are willing participants?
Your next sentence holds that assumption as obvious:
> I think it's good to force people to do things in many situations
Why do you think you should have freedom to even think, let alone decide, what is good for other people?
It's not necessarily good for each person, but good for society. Also I don't even know if I should have that freedom, that would be something we would have to philosophically investigate.
Why do you even think you should have the freedom to decide what's "good" in the first place?
All roads lead to freedom. There can be no tyranny without freedom to tyrannize - there's just no way around it.
This is literally what law is. A social construct to codify (and enable the enforcement of) what is deemed moral vs amoral.
Which implies that someone else had the freedom to decide what's good for you. Society is just a bunch of other people.
You appear to be trying to paint some kind on complex philosophical picture where it just simply doesn't exist.
Law is the codification, and ratification, of what society deems ethical/moral behaviour.
Unless you are about to start declaring some magic creates law, no shit it comes from people.
Or accept it as axiomatic.
We generally need them to force people not to do a few really bad things (e.g. some basic laws), but in recent decades it feels that the concept of freedom has been under relentless attack and in an era without religion, the state is almost becoming a substitute for a god.
But these days it seems that our leaders are motivated almost entirely by profit. They will not do what is best for the average individual.
EDIT: the second and third paragraphs were added after I wrote this message
Euthanasia, or suicide, is instead a problem of diminished capacity and whether or not suicide could ever be a decision of someone who is of sound mind. Much like we don't let babies walk into traffic, believe that a 9 year old is able to consent or allow severely mentally handicapped people the ability to refuse surgery -- having legal frameworks that don't encourage these things isn't about stripping away the right to self-ownership.