You divided the world into two camps, the religious and the non religious.
...
Who is more likely to be found agitating to deny people freedom and choice in their own destinies and in the course and conduct of their own lives and deaths - atheists or religionists?
Firstly I need to point out that you are doing the classic conflating non religious people with atheists - these are not the same group. There are plenty of non religious people who aren't atheist.
Secondly, in answer to you question. Without doubt the religious are much more likely to be agitating to restrict freedoms and choice than the non religious. And that isn't just in highly restrictive theocratic countries, but also in westernised democratic ones.
So on euthanasia it is largely (but not exclusively) religious people who refuse even to countenance the notion of giving patients the freedom of choice to end their lives as one option.
And of course recently we've seen furious agitating by religious people in many countries to maintain restrictions on freedom of choice for gay people to marry.
i wouldn't agree it is largely religious people who object to euthanasia, that's just a way of avoiding the ethical issue it raises.
I don't object to euthanising mental health patients because of religious beliefs, but because of ethical considerations.
It goes against the idea of medical ethics, especially on the issue of mental illness.
It's to easy to kill people in Belgium, it appears consent isn't always required either.
Plus it mirrors the thinking that persecuted Homosexuals in the first place, it's so open to abuse, which you will see if you read my links.
They have already "put down" one transsexual person who had a botched operation.
What counselling did he get? If any.
What about his right to claim negligence?
Very convenient for the medical profession over there, that the poor chap was depressed enough to ask to be bumped off, rather than resort to asking why the op was so badly botched.
I think you are misconstruing what I said. My words were:
'So on euthanasia it is largely (but not exclusively) religious people who refuse even to countenance the notion of giving patients the freedom of choice to end their lives as one option.'
And I stand by that statement. Note I talk about refusal to countenance patients having the freedom to end their lives as an option. Those that completely oppose this, on principle, as a matter of dogma, without being prepared to accept that there may be some circumstance where it can be acceptable tend to be religious and tend to use their religious belief to support a fundamental opposition.
Also to suggest that those who are not implacably opposed are dodging the issue is bizarre. The vast, vast majority of those who do not oppose allowing a patient to chose to die clearly recognise that this has to be on a case by case basis and that requires intense consideration of the situations where this option is reasonable and those where it is not. So for example the discussion we are currently having as to whether the distinction between mental and physical illness is relevant - or whether the option can only be available for patients who are terminally ill (and perhaps in the very late stages) rather than for patients who have conditions that aren't life limiting per se, but completely destroy (in the opinion of the patient) their quality of life.
All these are hugely important issues to be discussed and those who refuse to engage in that debate aren't those who don't object on principle but need to consider very carefully the criteria. Nope, those who won't engage are those who will never, ever countenance anyone being supported to die if that it their very, very firmly held desire. And I would argue once again that those dogmatic (or on principle) objectors in all cases tend to be disproportionately religious.
And then, of course, there is the disingenuous attempt to portray a dogmatic opposition to being one based on pragmatism. Often the 'oh but there isn't any need for assisted suicide etc because we can now control pain, or have palliative care when this is firstly highly paternalist (we know best), secondly not true as the control of pain often leads to related loos of dignity, major suffering and discomfort and actually mental anguish, any one of which may be just as important to the patient as the pain itself. Finally of course the argument is fundamentally disingenuous as these people will still refuse to countenance assisted dying even if it were proved that the patient's unbearable suffering and pain could not be controlled.
