[Link] Death with Dignity by Scott Adams

Tabooing Your Words has the purpose of removing a disagreement about word definitions from these discussions.

Tabooing your words is used when you personally are disagreeing with someone and you and them may not mean the same thing by the word. Tabooing your words is not used when discussing whether the word they use is misleading an audience. It doesn't actually matter that the proponents may think that "medical" means "relieves anxiety" thus qualifying recreational marijuana (as well as tobacco and alcohol) as medical; they know very well that the audience won't interpret it that way.

Am I intuiting this right

No.

I downvoted you because Viliam claimed medical marijuana prevents a great deal of pain, and you responded with - an argument that fails to even assert it causes pain elsewhere. Perhaps you could start by showing that what you call the "central" use of medical marijuana does not displace other recreational drugs.

That's not a loophole, that's literally just a description of doing things how you're supposed to do them.

It's like describing rightlyfully claiming simple tax deductions you're entitled to as a "tax loophole" or winning a game by scoring the most goals against the other team as using the "goals loophole".

Read more than the first word of my post.

There are many other horrible, distressing and unpleasant things in life and not all of them involve pain. Pain is just a simple case.

Pain is just another form of distress, people with only a childlike understand of ethics might ignore anything except pain but relieving other forms of significant suffering can also perfectly ethically involve death. There are things in life worse than death and that doesn't just include pain.

Having literally everything you are slowly erased can be massively distressing to people.

It's also possible to right laws that allow for gay "marriage", but don't force, say bakers, to bake cakes for gay weddings. The way things actually play out suggests this isn't actually possible in practice.

"In one of a dozen or so countries where X was done, Y also happened" isn't even terribly strong evidence for "it's not possible in practice to do X without Y also happening", let alone "it's not possible in practice to do anything in some reference class including X without something in some reference class including Y also happening".

For another data point, there is at least one major European country where doctors are both allowed to perform abortions and allowed to refuse to perform abortions and the situation hasn't changed much in either direction for decades.

I don't want doctors to be forced to perform euthanasia in the sense of giving a dosis of a drug with the direct intention to kill.

There are cases where I think it could be argued that a doctor shouldn't be able to put a patient without that patients consent on life support. I can imagine forbidding a doctor from engaging in life lengthening actions without the consent of the patient even if the doctors feels a moral obligation to lengthen the patients life.

There are cases where not given a patient valium and morphium means that the patient is in huge pain. A obligation on the part of the doctor to give valium and morphium to the point where the patient doesn't suffer even when that shortens life is debatable.

It's also possible to right laws that allow for gay "marriage", but don't force, say bakers, to bake cakes for gay weddings. The way things actually play out suggests this isn't actually possible in practice.

When I look at your link it doesn't seem to be the case that this is about laws enabling gay marriage. It's about a law called the Oregon Equality Act of 2007 that prevent businesses to discriminate against gay people. Whether or not the government has a law recognizing gay marriage that law would prevent bakers who fall under the "Public accommodations" section from baking those cakes. Given that only in 2014 Oregon seems to have returned to legalized same-sex marriage. That gives 7 years without a government having legalized same-sex marriage where as far as my understanding goes a baker should be banned to refuse selling wedding cakes to gay couples.

Apart from that I don't think it makes sense to have special regulation about baking cakes that specifically speak about the freedom of bakers to choose whether or not to bake cakes for certain purposes.

Cake backing doesn't seem to me an activity that deserves special legislation. I do think that euthanasia is a subject that deserves issues based legislation.

A good example might be how we regulate prostitution in Germany. You can legally make a contract in Germany to engage in prostitution. If two people however make such a contract and then the prostitute decides they don't want to have sex with that person, there no way to enforce the contract and force the prostitute to have sex.

I think that euthanasia is in that class of activities that shouldn't be forbidden but that also shouldn't be able to be enforced.

A side effect is something other than the intended effect. If you used it as a placebo, then it would have a 100% occurrence of lethal side effects, but as it is it has none.

"Non-moral reasons" is shorthand for reasons that do not involve morality that is not intrinsic to performing the duties he is being paid for. For instance, "I refuse to give the patient drug X, because drug Y will cure the patient and drug X will not" is a moral reason insofar as wanting the patient to be cured is a question of morality, but it would be okay. "I refuse to give the patient drug X because God tells me not to give people drug X" would be an unacceptable reason. This actually happens for contraceptives.

One solution is to prohibit such doctors from practicing medicine. Another solution is to permit them to opt out for moral reasons, but only if

1. There is some reasonable way for the patient to know in advance, and
2. Circumstances are such that the doctor's opting out doesn't make it too much harder for the patient to see another doctor who will provide such prescriptions

Letting people buy all medicine freely has its own problems because the doctor's refusal to prescribe also implies the doctor refuses to use his expertise to tell the patient what medicine he needs.