In the opinion of Chan & Lien (n.d, p.2) the scholars claim that if the benefits outweigh the costs, then selecting euthanasia is a rational choice.
The scholars point out that the benefits of euthanasia are zero pain, zero mental suffering, and reduced economic costs. On the other hand, continuing treatment means increasing pain as the disease progresses, increased mental and physical suffering, and medical cost of pain management and other medical services. Thus, it is pointed out that under the given circumstances, continuing treatment is more expensive than adopting euthanasia. In other words, if any society wants to reduce the demand for euthanasia, it should reduce the expenses involved in medical services and pain management.
Thus, one gets a clear idea about what is meant by Mills as the confusion between personal troubles and public issues. In the case of euthanasia too, the same situation arises. On the one hand, it is a personal trouble as the patient is the only one suffering. On the other hand, a large number of factors come into play while deciding whether Euthanasia should be adopted or not. They include religious and social values, medical costs, and so on (Infed, n.d).
Thus, the scholars point out that as the fruits of euthanasia come from reduced pain ad suffering linked to additional treatment and medications, if medical services succeed in making life painless for terminally ill people, there will be a considerable decline in the demand for euthanasia. According to Chan and Lien (n.d, p.6) yet another strategy as suggested by the scholars is to increase the cost of euthanasia which can be achieved by political and religious condemnation.
Another important claim from the scholars is that euthanasia can be used as an altruistic act. This can be achieved by using the medical and financial resources saved through euthanasia to treat those who are not terminally ill.