When one wants to talk about legalization of active euthanasia, one could the Right to Liberty Argument. This argument basically says it all in what it is called. This argument calls for the dying person right to choose. The dying patient should be free to choose if he wants to take part in euthanasia or not to take part to his personal liberty. The argument suggests that life belongs to that particular individual so he should have the right to decide for himself. It is a private issue because it is the individual that is dying so it should be up to that individual to act the way he wants. The Argument from Unexpected Cures can not be looked past either. This argument looks at the fact that the doctor can not make the judgement that the dying patient is hopeless. There have been cases that the patient was claimed hopeless and some how survived.
It is really hard to make a judgement on somebody because one could say that there is always hope of survival. This arguments takes in consideration for an unexpected cure of a disease for a particular patient and therefore active euthanasia should not be used. When speaking of morality, this argument suggests that immoral because we cannot decipher if the patient is really hopeless. I feel that the Right to Liberty Argument can be used to rebut the Argument from Unexpected Cures because in the Right to Liberty Argument it states that if a dying person wants to pursue active euthanasia, it is his own wish. I don't think the Argument from Unexpected Cures is a sound enough argument to pursued a dying individual on his decision to take part in active euthanasia. The Unexpected Cures goes with out saying that it will be unexpected that there will be a cure, basically playing very high odds for staying alive. I feel that it is a right to liberty for an individual to say that he wants to use active euthanasia even though there might be an unexpected cure.