For what its worth, I think we're approaching this question from opposite ends of the spectrum. Rather than asking when it is permissible to kill, I look at it as "when is overriding free will (on victimless actions) for societal good permissible"? Forcing terminally ill patients to live through the misery doesn't meet my bar on that front.
I realise that you're drawing a distinction between taking your life and having someone else take it for you, but to me, in this case the difference is largely academic since the agency remains with the patient at all times.
The objections to dueling were, as I understand, more around the social pressures which required one to participate making the idea of consent much more fuzzy.
I realise that you're drawing a distinction between taking your life and having someone else take it for you, but to me, in this case the difference is largely academic since the agency remains with the patient at all times.
The objections to dueling were, as I understand, more around the social pressures which required one to participate making the idea of consent much more fuzzy.