The user you're responding to is very clearly presenting a hypothetical argument, not something that actually exists.
The GP asked "Who decides on the duration of the waiting period? Why can’t people be in charge of their own lives?"
And the OP is making that point that (a) there must be someone in a position to make that decision, and that (b) there must be some waiting period.
In fact, if as you imply there are no countries that allow walk-in assisted euthanasia, that's a point in favor of the OPs point, because it suggests that we do widely recognize that there have to be some limits to individual freedom in this area.
i dont think id characterize those as limits on individual freedom, as much as a requirement of individual freedom. you actually have to want it, vs a whim where you might be drunk and not make the choice you wanted
Yes, it's true that for the choice to be a free one you have to actually want it, but making another person the arbiter of that reduces freedom insofar as there will be people who do freely want it and are forced to wait, or who freely want it and are rejected due to being able to prove they want to to the arbiter's satisfaction.
The GP asked "Who decides on the duration of the waiting period? Why can’t people be in charge of their own lives?"
And the OP is making that point that (a) there must be someone in a position to make that decision, and that (b) there must be some waiting period.
In fact, if as you imply there are no countries that allow walk-in assisted euthanasia, that's a point in favor of the OPs point, because it suggests that we do widely recognize that there have to be some limits to individual freedom in this area.