SO the state ought not suport euthanasia as an answer to social issues that have other solutions. — Banno

But this exacts a consequence on the state for the state's bad conduct, yet it's the innocent citizen who's actually punished.

Society A: You are shot dead.
Society B: You are tortured and beaten and forced to watch your loved ones tortured and beaten for the rest of your natural life.
Society C: It offers you the choice of Society A or B.

There is no other society. I'd think C is the most fair. That all Societies are bad is obvious. That all should end all oppression is obvious. To claim, however, that Society C should be forced to eliminate immediate death as an option to teach it the lesson that state assisted suicide ought not be given does nothing for the suffering citizen and it does nothing to correct Society C's behavior.

There is no other society. — Hanover

Why not?

Well that's how hypotheticals work. You limit the variables; otherwise everyone just chooses utopia.

If we live in a world that unjustly oppresses to the point where death is better than life, then death is better than life. That's just the way it is. I agree that we ought to fix that screwed up society, but in the meantime, allow the relief valve.

Yet by allowing the relief valve you are allowing the injustice to continue.

Yet by allowing the relief valve you are allowing the injustice to continue. — Banno

That doesn't follow and contradicts your earlier complaint about an unfair juxtaposition between the two, which you know argue for yourself.

Does it? I don't see how.

Does it? I don't see how. — Banno

You don't need to as long as it's clear that it doesn't follow that introducing state assisted suicide allows social injustice to continue.

Forget all the long-winded responses.

The best justification for State-assisted suicide is that you did not choose to be born, and therefore you should be entitled to a painless, quick and humane death.