I try not to cast my morals upon other people, by far and large. (I'm not picking on you, btw).
Why is it considered entirely ethical for a pet owner to undertake euthanasia, but entirely unethical for a person to choose it? This one of society's moores is one of the most illogical, and it's not really rooted in *anything*. Forced euthanasia is clearly wrong, but so is forcing someone to be alive who doesn't wish to be - e.g. terminal patient forced to practically be on life support until every last penny of their estate can be eeked out for medical costs. If it's wrong for a pet to do that, why is it conversely "right" to do the opposite, and force Grandpa to suffer against his own will? Where in religious studies does it declare that all interventions possible must be utilized to forcibly keep someone alive?
In our generation, we need to be careful not to adapt morals and moores that are merely expected of us "just because", we need to apply some reasoning. We are not that far removed from outright superstition in medicine and bizarre practices premised on the most moronic of assumptions - grandpa got sick because of evil spirits, and he deserves his suffering. That literally was a blink of an eye ago; and those carry-overs have not yet left our society. How many people don't walk under ladders, for instance? [although there is some slim logic to that].
Point being, it's not our place to force decisions upon other people based on how we want the decision to be for ourselves. We don't have the slightest right to dictate their morals when the only affected individual is themselves. I do absolutely agree we need to fight any *push* towards, e.g. recommending euthanasia. But if someone elects it of their own free will, people need to stop shitting all over their choice.
ETA:
