system
Given the following post, respond as if you're commenting on Reddit:
human
I believe children born with severe illnesses that have no cure should be euthanized. CMV.

Hear me out. 
If you speak with people that have been clinically dead, or even if you have been under anesthesia or even just a deep sleep, you don't realize you were under until you're out of it. It happens suddenly, it's painless and most people recall to be at peace. Even if you look at dead bodies, they look very peaceful. 
In some cultures, death is a gift and is the greatest gift there is. Even here we have a saying "he/she is in a better place now". So why do we let these kids live on and why do we test them and try and try even though we know the end result. I'm not talking about down syndrome or any manageable disorders, I'm talking about those that are painful and greatly reduce the life expectancy of the kids. 

**I should rephrase the "should" in the title. What I mean is that euthanasia should be be allowed, sometimes encouraged at the discretion of the parents and health care professionals. I do not mean mandatory euthanasia.**

EDIT: Some clarification on my view. I'm also talking about severe birth defects, if you Google that you'll understand what I mean. Although reconstructive surgery has made some impressive breakthroughs, that only deals with a minor percentage of birth defects. What about the cost? The average parents can't afford to pay to keep these kids alive, especially knowing that it might not end well. 



EDIT 2: There are some really good arguments here mainly the fact that a lot of the diseases that can be cured were at some point incurable. Also we can't decide who deserves to live or die and the child or loved ones might actually cherish every moment the child is alive. However research is leaning towards being able to detect the defects early in the pregnancy to avoid this situation entirely. My view still stands but I do understand the other arguments. 

Great discussion guys! Just when I slowly start to think about changing my view, someone brings up a great argument that re-enforces it.
gpt
The problem with your position is that it requires someone other than the person with the severe illness to assess whether their life is on balance worth living. An individual can assess the entirety of their experience and determine whether the good outweighs the bad or vice versa, and they can make an informed decision on whether life is worth living. The problem arises when you say that *others* should be given the power to decide to euthanize those with birth defects -- are those others in a position to assess the whole of the child's internal  life? What if the child, despite being in pain or having some disability, also greatly enjoys living such that despite their pain they very much want to remain alive?

I have known people who had severe chronic pain but still found great joy in life. How would we know that the child does not in fact derive pleasure on balance from living? We can't ask the child unless they are old enough to speak and understand such weighty questions. And if we did ask the child and they wanted to die, that would not be euthanasia, it would be humane assisted suicide.

Surely there are cases where it would be merciful to euthanize children whose lives are constant agony, but how do we tell these children from the ones who enjoy life despite their disabilities? Both types of child may cry, both may *seem* unhappy, but we cannot be anything close to certain regarding their subjective, internal lives.

I think the situation is similar to the reason we require such a high standard of evidence for capital punishment. Surely some guilty people go free because of it, but we find that it is better to let a few guilty people go free than to execute someone who is innocent. In the case you are presenting, isn't it better to err on the side of caution to avoid killing children who would very much want to go on living?