If you take the term euthanasia in its original meaning: a "good death," "nice death," or "good dying" from the point of view of the dying person and their loved ones, then that's okay for me.

Should someone want the treatment (even if only in old age) I would never refuse it. For me it would be like refusing a cancer therapy to a prisoner. For me, that would be unethical.

And yeah, no gov or a person or a ngo should force someone to take the treatment.

If we fight the disease via cell regeneration, it could be that our cells will eventually start to get sick again and treatment will be needed on an ongoing basis. This would mean that one can decide again and again.

I mean I doubt they'll kill you when your number is up, the insurance policy will simply not renew your immortality prescription once it surpassed a certain cost... depending on what policy you decide to buy...

>pro euthanasia

If you had a treatment for aging, most physical diseases and effective treatments for most psychiatric conditions, how can you allow euthanasia?

Any problem a person has - whether they feel they don't want to live anymore, or have a currently incurable condition - can be fixed. Maybe not now but since there's no aging they can wait however long it will take for a cure. And if they feel they don't want to live any more, you can connect up nanowires to deep inside their brain and or sensors, and there is probably a problem you will be able to detect with this level of technology.

Do you then just kill them, knowing their impulse to die is coming from broken circuitry in your brain you can fix? (or again, wait for a future cure).

Do you not even do the testing and just accept their wish to die without inserting the probes? You know there is probably a problem with their brain.