Euthanasia I

Euthanasia is the practice of killing a terminally ill patient to relieve him of unbearable and intractable suffering. It's a highly charged topic, and one I don't understand fully. Some people argue that our right to do what we want with our bodies encompasses allowing us to decide how and when we die. Other people argue that it is mercy in the face of unresolvable and unimaginable suffering. And the confluence of these two distinctly separate yet interrelated ideas puts the issue into the focus of medicine. The principle of autonomy in medical ethics allows patients to choose how they deal with their bodies. And one of medicine's goals is the relief of suffering.

But here are some thoughts. If autonomy and the right to do what you want with your body is the justification for euthanasia, why limit it to people who are suffering? Why not allow anyone to request suicide if the ruling principle is that he can decide what he wants to do with his body? On the other hand, if euthanasia is justified by relief of suffering, why limit it to people who can give consent? People who are mentally retarded, have psychiatric illness, and minors may be suffering just as much, but why deny them relief of that suffering if that is the basis for euthanasia?

Obviously we don't want people deciding to commit suicide unless they are terminally ill and facing immense suffering, and we don't want to kill those who would have denied euthanasia if they could have given consent. But the point here is that euthanasia cannot simply be justified either by a patient's right to autonomy or by relief of suffering. It somehow needs a marriage of these two ideas, but this combination seems to me artificial: a patient's right to decide what to do with his body extends to suicide if and only if he is experiencing the right suffering. That doesn't seem to be a priori self-evident. Is it really something that can be ethically and philosophically justified?