Critique Arguments Against Euthanasia

Critique Argument Paper
The position paper took a stand against euthanasia, questioning if it’s morally impermissible in regards to the dependency thesis. This paper will argue that the argument in the position paper was flawed because of the vague description of the term, “religious cultures” and the applications of their beliefs, and the misperception of the scripture, “you must not kill.”
The position paper frequently uses the term, “religious cultures” in order to back its point. It cannot be derived, that just because these “religious cultures” say it is wrong, or that as some religious cultures accept the point of karma and reincarnation, euthanasia is wrong or immoral. There are numerous religions, such as the Abrahamic religions,

which do not prescribe to the belief of reincarnation, and to say that it is wrong just because of a few that do is a major flaw. Whether one is religious or not is a personal belief and to hold that person accountable based on various religions and cultures, to which he does not prescribe to, would in fact be erroneous.  
The position paper also uses the impact of scriptures in cultures, especially that of, “you must not kill” to back its point of believing euthanasia to be immoral. One could argue that this is a misperception of the scripture and can look at this, rather than killing, as a mode of liberation. Euthanasia is not murder in cold blood, but is the practice of intentionally ending a life in order to relieve pain and suffering. By accepting euthanasia, the person is being unshackled from his pain and suffering, rather than living in a constant state of mental or physical torture. In these circumstances, euthanasia arguably would be the more humane option. 
The position argument written earlier has numerous holes and flaws, but the two points presented exposes its imperfections. There are no universally valid moral values that pertain to everybody, all the time.