So I found myself thinking about a combination of these matters. And I thought of something interesting, I'd like to share with you. I think that rationally, laws against euthanasia and suicide can only exist within a theocracy or pseudo-theocracy. Let me explain. The idea is that it's a different perspective of property of life. See, it is only justifyable from a religious point of view that you cannot decide over your own life, as it is (in most religions) God-given. I mean, that's one of those things which sort of define religion. God(s) created life, therefore no one is allowed to take it. Not even from himself. However, if this is all discarded of (ie, aetheism), all this all of the sudden stops to make sense. If ever life was property of anyone, is the one living it. Mind that this still forbids murder. If no higher entity prevents you from killing oneself, then what is there to argue against the desire of someone to stop living? Therefore, when we translate this to politics, laws against (or, in other cases, no laws enabling) it must be dictated or inspired by religion. The first case would be a theocracy and - for sake of discussion - the latter would be a pseudo-theocracy, as the seperation between "church" and state is not complete when laws are inspired by religion. An interesting matter would be an inventarisation of (pseudo-) theocracies in this world, as in most countries euthanasia is either forbidden or not allowed (ie, not different from murder, in whatever degree). The political implications are bizarre. Few wester countries would be glad by being called a pseudo-theocracy. Still, at the end of this, we have to conclude that this is the case in many instances. But I mean, please point me wrong. These are just my thoughts. I just thought that they were quite interesting and discussable.