There has been much debate in recent American society over the legality and morality of a
patients right-to-die. Current legal statue prohibits any form of euthanasia, however, there
are many moral and ethical dilemmas concerning the controversy. For the purposes of this
essay, I will define euthanasia as the implementation of a decision that a person's life will
come to an end before it need stop. In other words, it is a life ending when it would
otherwise be prolonged. There is an important distinction between voluntary euthanasia
where the decision to terminate life coincides with the individuals wishes and involuntary
euthanasia where the individual concerned does not know about the decision and has not
approved it in advance. I will be dealing specifically with the concept of voluntary
euthanasia, for it seems intuitive that involuntary euthanasia is not only illegal but also
profoundly immoral. Opponents arguments against euthanasia which fail to substantiate
their claims, many proponents arguments highlighted by the right to autonomy, and
empirical examples of legalized euthanasia all prove the moral legitimacy of physician-
assisted-suicide.
Opponents of euthanasia generally point to three main arguments which I will
mention only for the purposes of refuting them. First, many cite the Hippocratic oath
which reads, 'I will give no deadly medicine to anyone if asked, nor suggest any such
counsel' as a reason to oppose euthanasia. Clearly, the Hippocratic oath does condemn
the practice, however, I do not find this as reason enough to reject the moral permissibility
of euthanasia. If the premise of the oath is flawed (i.e., if it is morally permissible for a
physician to assist in suicide), then a physician should not be prohibited from assisting in
suicide simply because of an oath. Indeed, if it is proven (as will be done later in this...