Euthanasia

Euthanasia, also known as mercy killing or assisted suicide, is the deliberate ending of a
person’s life to relieve their suffering from a terminal or incurable illness. Euthanasia is a controversial
and complex issue that raises ethical, legal, social, and religious questions. In this paper, I will argue that
voluntary active euthanasia should be legalized and regulated in cases where a person is suffering from a
terminal or incurable illness, and has made a clear and informed decision to end their life.

One of the main arguments against euthanasia is that it is a violation of the sanctity and value
of human life, and that it goes against the natural law and the will of God (ProCon.org, 2018). According
to this view, human life is sacred and inviolable, and only God can give and take it away. Euthanasia is
seen as a form of murder or suicide, which are morally wrong and sinful. However, this argument is not
convincing or relevant for several reasons. First, it is based on a religious and metaphysical premise,
which is not universally accepted or shared by all people. Second, it is based on a rigid and absolutist
conception of life, which does not take into account the quality and circumstances of life. Third, it is
based on a false dilemma, which assumes that there are only two options: life or death. In reality, there are
many other factors and alternatives that can affect the decision and outcome of euthanasia.

One of the main arguments for euthanasia is that it is consistent with the principles of
autonomy and beneficence, and the respect for the patient’s wishes and dignity (FutureofWorking.com,
n.d.). Autonomy means that a person has the right to make their own decisions about their life and health,
as long as they do not harm others. Beneficence means that a person has the duty to do good and prevent
harm to others. Voluntary active euthanasia respects the autonomy of the patient, who has the right to
choose when and how they die, and the beneficence of the physician, who has the duty to relieve the
patient’s suffering and respect their wishes. Voluntary active euthanasia also protects the patient from the
harms of continued existence, such as physical pain, emotional distress, loss of dignity, and loss of
control. Therefore, voluntary active euthanasia is morally justified and permissible.

Another argument for euthanasia is that it can reduce the physical and psychological pain of
patients and their families (Soapboxie, 2017). Many terminally ill patients suffer from unbearable and
incurable pain, which cannot be relieved by any medication or treatment. Euthanasia can offer them a
peaceful and painless death, which can end their agony and misery. Euthanasia can also spare the families
of the patients from the emotional and financial burden of witnessing and supporting their loved ones in
their final moments. Euthanasia can allow the patients and their families to say goodbye and express their
love and gratitude in a dignified and respectful way. Therefore, euthanasia can enhance the quality and
meaning of life and death.

A further argument for euthanasia ”s that it can prevent the wastage of scarce medical
resources and the prolongation of futile treatment (FutureofWorking.com, n.d.). Many terminally ill
patients occupy hospital beds and consume expensive drugs and equipment, which could be used for
other patients who have a better chance of recovery and survival. Euthanasia can free up these resources
and allocate them more efficiently and fairly. Euthanasia can also avoid the unnecessary and harmful
extension of life, which can cause more harm than good to the patient and the society. Euthanasia can
respect the patient’s preference and dignity, and allow them to die naturally and peacefully. Therefore,
euthanasia can promote the social and economic welfare and justice.

A final argument for euthanasia is that it can increase the personal and professional freedom
and responsibility of the patient and the physician (ProCon.org, 2018). Many patients and physicians face
legal and moral dilemmas and constraints when they consider or perform euthanasia. They may face
criminal charges, civil lawsuits, professional sanctions, or social stigma. Euthanasia can protect them
from these risks and pressures, and grant them the right and the opportunity to exercise their own
judgment and conscience. Euthanasia can also encourage them to have an honest and open
communication and consultation, and to follow the ethical and professional guidelines and standards.
Therefore, euthanasia can foster the trust and respect between the patient and the physician.
 In conclusion, I have argued that voluntary active euthanasia should be legalized and
regulated in cases where a person is suffering from a terminal or incurable illness, and has made a clear
and informed decision to end their life. I have supported my position by presenting four main arguments:
first, that voluntary active euthanasia is consistent with the principles of autonomy and beneficence;
second, that voluntary active euthanasia can reduce the physical and psychological pain of patients and
their families; third, that voluntary active euthanasia can prevent the wastage of scarce medical resources
and the prolongation of futile treatment; and fourth, that voluntary active euthanasia can increase the
personal and professional freedom and responsibility of the patient and the physician. I recommend that
the government and the society should adopt a more open and tolerant attitude towards euthanasia, and
that they should enact laws and regulations that protect the rights and interests of both the patients and the
physicians who are involved in euthanasia. I also suggest that more research and education should be
done on the topic of euthanasia, to increase the awareness and understanding of the public and the
professionals, and to improve the quality and safety of the practice. Euthanasia is not a simple or easy
issue, but a complex and challenging one, that requires careful and thoughtful consideration and
discussion. I hope that this paper has contributed to the debate and dialogue on euthanasia, and that it has
helped you to form your own opinion and position on this important and controversial topic.