Doctor first and foremost should administer anesthetics to patient’s system to alleviate his suffering, instead of an outright euthanasia.
The practice of euthanasia is often linked or put in opposition to the palliative care since both concern themselves with a well-being of terminally ill patients. There is no consensus in the hospice community towards the legalization of euthanasia.
Euthanasia as an act is final and cannot be undone. If the main reason for the legalization of euthanasia is alleviating the pain of a terminally ill patient, then logically follows, that an administration of opiates or other pharmacological measures aimed at minimizing suffering suffice in reaching that goal. If that's the case, then there’s no justification for actively ending a patient’s life. Administration of anesthetics is always preferable than euthanasia since it doesn't create ethical dilemmas, it keeps the possibility of a recovery, no matter how improbable, open and doesn't put a responsibility of deciding in matters of life and death on physicians. Furthermore, a legal euthanasia - as a quick and cheap resolution to the issue of dying patients - might also put the scientifical progress in a field of palliative care in jeopardy.
There are diseases and conditions for which an alternative of a palliative care is difficult or simply non-existent. For example, palliative care cannot stop some patients from experiencing constant vomiting, breathlessness or paralyzation. Palliative care also do not resolve an issue of the dependency on others, which is very important for some patients interested in the legalization of euthanasia.
The goal of the euthanasia is alleviating the pain of a terminally ill patient. Palliative care can reach that goal without irrevocable ending of a patient's life. Therefore, the palliative care is always preferable than the euthanasia.
Not all patients can be relieved from pain by palliative care, which defeats the purpose of the argument.
Content references here ...