This guy seems like a good reason.
If he were in the USA I think he would have been sentenced to death or life without parole or 4 consecutive life sentences. No way would he be eligible for parole in 30 years. He’s only 32 years old.
Also, it appears he worked for the NHS. IIRC so did Shipman, the monstrous mass-murdering physician. What a surprise.
Everybody knows that you have to carefully screen people who apply to be schoolteachers, cops or prison guards, but how about a little more psych review for hospital employees? Hospitals are playgrounds for clever psychopaths. Some elderly patients die. Who suspects?
This kind of event, of which I am sure many more go undetected, is by itself a strong reason not to allow physicians to engage in euthanasia. The scope for abuse, even by practitioners who mean well, is extremely high. In my experience, people who favor institutionalizing euthanasia a la the Netherlands never consider the likelihood that the system will be abused. It’s like handling lit blowtorches around open pools of gasoline.
UPDATE: In the comments, Tim Worstall says that I misunderstood the meaning of “eligible for parole” in the British system. However, from his description it sounds similar to the US system (which nonetheless varies from state to state). How close are the similarities? And how likely is it that the subject of the article I linked to will actually be released at some point?