Assisted suicide or euthanasia is one of the most ethically biased and widely discussed topics in modern society. The individual who decides to end life does not harm other community members with this decision, which makes it a personal choice. It is possible to state that euthanasia should be legal because the ban on assisted suicide infringes on the person’s right to own life and death, which is unacceptable in liberal and secular societies.
The main point that supports the idea that euthanasia should be legal is the explicit right of every human to decide their death. Even though the idea that people have the right to die if they want to stop their suffering is not usually articulated, it is implied in the general discussion of this topic. There are no discussions about whether the person has the right to commit suicide or not because most individuals agree that it is the decision of the adult person who can dispose of their life (Keeling, 2018). Though, in the case of assisted suicide, an individual has to ask another person for help due to external circumstances, including their inability to take action themselves. In particular, the person can have no physical opportunity to end their life due to a severe incurable illness (Savulescu, 2018). It makes euthanasia a biased topic from the moral point of view because there is a need for the medical help of the nurse in this case.
From a practical point of view, assisted suicide is a controlled process that guarantees the person that they will not harm others with their desire to die. For instance, when the individual decides to commit suicide and chooses to drown, there is the chance that another person will try to save them and will also die during this attempt. Euthanasia eliminates the possibilities of a similar adverse scenario, and the individual who decides to end their own life will pass quickly and painlessly without endangering others (Savulescu, 2018). In addition, the person with an incurable diagnosis that requires the constant support of life in the hospital needs the time of healthcare professionals and uses the resources of the healthcare facility (Savulescu, 2018). The euthanasia of this individual might help other patients with severe problems who receive little medical help.
Religious views on death suppose euthanasia is immoral and should not be legalized. From the traditional spiritual perspective that was dominant in Western culture for many centuries, people cannot decide whether they want to live or die because everything is in the hands of God (Sharp, 2017). Though from the material point of view, the religious argumentation is not justified and rational, and the ban on euthanasia restricts human rights. It allows assuming that euthanasia should be the legal option for those who do not share religious views on life and death. Otherwise, religious morality restricts their rights.
To conclude, euthanasia should be legal because everyone has the right to decide whether they want to live or die. The restrictions on this decision are against the fundamental human rights that suppose the opportunity to make free choices and to dispose of own body. It is not justified to impose religious views on life and death on people who do not share these beliefs. Euthanasia is the humanistic way to end suffering without endangering other people’s lives, which foregrounds the need to make it legal.
References
Keeling, G. (2018). The sensitivity argument against child euthanasia. Journal of Medical Ethics, 44(2), 143–144.
Savulescu, J. (2018). The structure of ethics review: expert ethics committees and the challenge of voluntary research euthanasia. Journal of Medical Ethics, 44(7), 491–493.
Sharp, S. (2017). Traditional God images and attitudes towards voluntary euthanasia. Review of Religious Research, 59(4), 529–545.