Voluntary Active Euthanasia

Euthanasia is a commonly debated topic in today’s society with countless numbers of citizens who support or are against euthanasia. Citizens have various reasons as to why they are for against euthanasia and whether or not it is moral. In this paper I will argue that euthanasia is moral, because every citizen's has a right to self-determination and one’s decisions to euthanasia himself or herself is their right according to self-determination. Therefore, euthanasia should be legal when it is voluntary active euthanasia. Dan W. Brock’s article Voluntary Active Euthanasia will be used in this paper as a source of support for my argument that euthanasia should be legal. My argument in support for voluntary active euthanasia is every person has
For someone to state they want to be euthanasia they must be competent and able to make this decision in a clear mind and them be the only person to make the decision, not their family. Self-determination is defined as someone having complete control of their life. In reference to self-determination, Brock states, “self-determination is valuable because it permits people to form and live in accordance with their own conception of a good life, at least within the bounds of just and consistent with other doins so as well” (646). A point to out is that people have different ideas of what a good life is to oneself, but a person must make this decision for oneself. For some this idea of a good life may include voluntary active euthanasia. Brock’s entire argument discusses the benefits of allowing voluntary active euthanasia are high and that there are no solid arguments why one should be against voluntary active euthanasia, as long as it is regulated. Brock states, “if self-determination is a fundamental value, then the great variability among people on this questions makes it especially important that individuals control the manner, circumstances, and time of their dying and
The main support behind euthanasia is the fact that it must be voluntarily active. Some people may have different views of what they consider competent to make this decision. Some people may not be competent to make this decisions, but could be deceived by family or physicians into stating their support euthanasia when they are not competent to make this decision. This could be a way for family members and physicians to end having to deal with the “difficulties” of the patient. It is difficult to define competent and a person may have a different view of what they view as competent. One’s view of being competent to make this serious decision could mean the person is actually being passively non voluntarily euthanized. Defining what is classified as competent could lead to issues with voluntary active euthanasia being considered moral. This form of euthanasia would go against all forms of self-determination and would therefore undermine one’s support for voluntary active