Thank you very much for this question. I think what you would like to happen in a country is that if there is a shift in practice, particularly one like euthanasia, you want it to be well reasoned, well prepared and safe. What happened in the Netherlands was that the law, as it was formulated in 2002, was open to all sorts of uses that I don't think were initially seen as possibilities.
What you will see with euthanasia is that individual clinicians often differ wildly in what they think they see before them in terms of suffering, irremediability, futility, autonomy, etc. This is what we've seen in the Netherlands. If there is a media campaign that will sway a group of physicians who really think they are following their instincts of mercy and then expand their practice, society is not able to keep up with that and to control, deliberate and assess what is happening.
With such a difficult issue, where there's no consensus on the criteria, it's not about being against euthanasia; it's about who can address the fluctuating opinion surrounding these criteria. For example, you should have a transparent public body for oversight with representatives of disability, palliative care, psychiatry—and, in your case, indigenous and lived experience communities—and not just the activist providers. It was proposed in the Netherlands as well to have a committee of wise, experienced individuals from all corners of society to do more oversight and lead the debate.