1

From birth, each human being is granted a multitude of natural rights. With each of these privileges comes the option to abstain. An individual may remain silent though they can speak; one might not have beliefs though they have the freedom of religion. The right of existence presents a similar choice, as everyone has the capability of ending his or her own life. In most cases of suicide, the community takes preventative action in order to help the person in question restore a sense of hope, but this is not true for every instance. When a person has their life ended for medical purposes, it is referred to as euthanasia. America has outlawed euthanasia, stripping citizens of a right. Legalizing the freedom to practice euthanasia is essential to preserving human rights. In order to discuss the legal debate over euthanasia, a bit of exposition is necessary. Euthanasia is categorized as voluntary or involuntary. If a patient willingly consents to ending their life, it is voluntary. If the decision is left up to someone else, it is involuntary (Otlowski 79). The latter case usually occurs if the patient is deemed legally incompetent, meaning that they are believed to not be able to make informed decisions concerning their condition (81). Euthanasia is also classified as active or passive. Active implies that actions were taken to induce death; whereas passive means that the patient dies from a lack of treatment (Types of Euthanasia). Henceforth, euthanasia will refer to voluntary, active euthanasia. Recently, public and professional attention has moved from life-sustaining treatment over to euthanasia. The central ethical argument for euthanasia is that the same two moral values supporting the consent of the patients right to make decisions about life-sustaining treatment must align with the proper permissibility of euthanasia (Brock). These two values are selfdetermination and individual well-being. It is vital for one facing the opportunity of assisted suicide to have interest in making important decisions concerning their lives in accordance to

2 their own moral values or perception of a good, fulfilled life . . . at least within the bounds of justice and consistent with others doing so as well (Brock). Where a person is legally competent and is suffering, the determination of whether or not to exercise euthanasia needs to be left in their hands. However, assisted suicide is the deliberate killing of an innocent person. Modern medical care is immensely efficient and doctors have technology to forestall death as long as is possible. With this, it can be said that death is not the only option for a person with a terminal illness. The future lying ahead of a person in this state of being is terrifying. To end a life because of fear can be viewed as giving up. Societys role is to help people around them live their lives as well as they can. This can be made possible in some cases through counseling and helping the patient comes to terms with their condition (Webster). Those who are in the late stages of an incurable disease have a ghastly future in front of them: the on-going decline of their body, the malfunction of their organs and the required artificial support. In some cases, the illness will slowly destroy them mentally; even if this does not occur, the vast amounts of medication necessary to control their pain will repeatedly leave them in a restless and helpless state (Webster). Faced with this, it is certainly more civilized that those people be allowed to choose the method of their end, and die in a way that is ideal for them.