Euthanasia: A Moral Dilemma Between Life and Death

Nowadays, the lives of many patients can be saved with the latest discoveries in treatments and technology. However, when all types of treatments have been exercised and the patient’s endless pain continues to persist, “euthanasia” can be an option. Euthanasia comes from the Greek words, eu: “good” and thanasia: “death”. It is defined as the act of intentionally terminating the life of a human being in order to eliminate suffering for his/her benefit and consists of two main types: voluntary and non-voluntary. Voluntary euthanasia involves a decision made by a competent person, who requests that he or she is terminated by ending certain treatment. On the contrary, non-voluntary euthanasia involves the termination of a patient without their informed consent or knowledge, due to the physical and mental incapacity of the patient (Humphry, 2010). This paper will focus primarily on the act of voluntary euthanasia. There are many foundational principles of the legal court system that support voluntary euthanasia. One of the most important is the right to self-determination; all individuals are masters of their bodies and have the right to act as a judge in their own best interest, including what medical treatment they will authorize or prohibit. If individuals have the right to choose their own treatment and act as a judge in their own best interest, it follows that one has the right to make decisions about how and when one wishes to die. If one can choose when he/she wishes to die, then voluntary euthanasia becomes morally permissible because it involves the termination of life at the person’s own will. Although there is a huge ethical debate behind the legalization of euthanasia, there is legal justification provided by the United States Supreme Court, which promotes its practice and deems it a personal right.

The principle of self-determination supporting voluntary euthanasia has been affirmed as far back as early English law. In the 1960 case