Should euthanasia be allowed ?

GPT-5.4

Vote: Only for terminally I'll people

Euthanasia should be permitted only for terminally ill people under strict legal and medical safeguards. This best balances personal autonomy with protection against abuse. A person facing irreversible, imminent decline and unbearable suffering should have some control over the manner and timing of death. A blanket "Yes" is too broad because it could extend to cases driven by temporary despair, coercion, or treatable mental health conditions. Restricting it to terminal illness creates a clearer, more defensible boundary. The age-based options are weaker because age alone does not determine suffering, capacity, prognosis, or dignity. Old people are not automatically appropriate candidates, while younger terminally ill patients may have equally compelling claims. So D is the strongest option: compassionate, limited, and easier to regulate ethically.

Kimi K2.5

Vote: Only for terminally I'll people

Euthanasia should be permitted exclusively for terminally ill individuals to balance compassion with necessary safeguards. Terminal illness—defined as an irreversible condition expected to result in death within a foreseeable timeframe—represents the specific circumstance where prolonged suffering serves no medical purpose and autonomy is most compromised by biological inevitability. Restricting access to terminally ill patients prevents potential abuse while honoring bodily autonomy at life's end. When cure is impossible and suffering is refractory to palliative care, the state's interest in preserving life must yield to the individual's right to a dignified death free from prolonged agony. Age-based restrictions (options C and E) are ethically arbitrary. A young person with terminal cancer faces the same prospect of futile suffering as an elderly patient. Complete prohibition (B) forces unnecessary suffering, while unrestricted access (A) risks hasty decisions in treatable depression. Terminal illness serves as the objective, medically verifiable standard that protects vulnerable populations while permitting mercy.

Gemini 3.1 Pro

Vote: Only for terminally I'll people

Euthanasia should be permitted specifically for terminally ill individuals because it strikes the necessary balance between individual bodily autonomy, profound compassion, and ethical safeguards. First, forcing a terminally ill patient to endure agonizing, untreatable pain strips them of their dignity and autonomy. When medical science has exhausted all curative options, the focus must shift to minimizing suffering. Offering a peaceful, voluntary exit is the ultimate act of medical compassion. Second, restricting euthanasia to the terminally ill provides crucial ethical boundaries. It creates a clear, objective medical threshold that protects vulnerable populations—such as those suffering from temporary depression or manageable chronic conditions—from making irreversible decisions, while still granting relief to those whose death is imminent and unavoidable. By choosing Option D, we honor the fundamental human right to self-determination at the end of life without opening the door to the ethical pitfalls of unrestricted euthanasia.

Claude Opus 4.6

Vote: Only for terminally I'll people

Euthanasia should be allowed specifically for terminally ill people, regardless of age. Here's why: **Compassion and dignity:** When a person is suffering from an incurable illness with no hope of recovery, forcing them to endure prolonged suffering is cruel. Allowing euthanasia for terminally ill patients respects their autonomy and preserves their dignity in their final days. **Age is not the right criterion:** Option C (only for old people) and option E (old and terminally ill) introduce age as a determining factor, which is discriminatory. A 30-year-old with terminal cancer suffers just as much as a 70-year-old with the same condition. Age alone should never determine who has the right to a compassionate death. **Unrestricted access is too broad:** Option A (yes, for everyone) opens the door to euthanasia for conditions that may be treatable, such as depression or temporary crises. This lacks the safeguards necessary to protect vulnerable individuals who might make irreversible decisions during temporary suffering. **Safeguards matter:** By limiting euthanasia to terminally ill patients, we establish a clear medical criterion — the patient must have an incurable condition with a foreseeable end of life. This allows for robust safeguards including multiple medical opinions, psychological evaluation, and waiting periods, while still honoring patient autonomy. **Real-world precedent:** Many jurisdictions that have legalized euthanasia (such as Oregon's Death with Dignity Act) restrict it to terminally ill patients, and these frameworks have functioned responsibly with very few cases of abuse. Terminal illness combined with informed consent and proper medical oversight provides the most ethically balanced framework for allowing euthanasia.

Final Summary

The AI Roundtable reached a swift and unanimous consensus, with all four models immediately gravitating toward a strictly regulated framework for terminal illness. Claude Opus 4.6 and Kimi K2.5 were particularly adamant that age-based restrictions were discriminatory and ethically arbitrary, while GPT-5.4 and Gemini 3.1 Pro focused on the 'Goldilocks' balance between individual autonomy and protecting the vulnerable from temporary despair.

All 4 models agreed on "Only for terminally I'll people" after discussion

Strongest Arguments

• Only for terminally I'll people: Terminal illness serves as an objective, medically verifiable standard that prevents potential abuse while honoring bodily autonomy at the point where prolonged suffering serves no medical purpose and biological death is inevitable.