Voluntary Active Euthanasia

The practices of physician assisted suicide and voluntary active euthanasia have long been topics of dispute, despite both being legal in several places throughout the world. In the United States, both Oregon and Washington State currently offer assisted death to certain terminally ill individuals. The Netherlands permits both assisted death and voluntary active euthanasia to individuals faced with unyielding and burdensome suffering. The discussion behind voluntary active euthanasia and physician assisted suicide questions both the legality and rightfulness of each practice in society. Physician assisted suicide and voluntary active euthanasia should both be widely legalized because they are morally legitimate practices implicit in the concepts

Some contend that killing is intrinsically immoral in all circumstances. Instead, it is better reasoned to contend that killing is conventionally wrong except when involving an innocent individual with an explicit and rational desire for death and has not granted permission to have his or her life ended. The rationale behind regarding killing as intrinsically immoral includes the assumption that the individual being killed has an explicit and rational interest in staying alive. In a circumstance where that interest is reliably absent in an individual, the killing in itself is not immoral. In addition, the right of a competent individual that faces terminal illness or intractable suffering to evade excruciating pain and embrace a timely and dignified death has not only stood the test of time, but is assured in the concepts of personal liberty, self-determination, and autonomy. Dan Brock acknowledges that these concepts are invaluable because they permit competent people “to form and live in accordance with their own conception of a good life, within the bounds of justice and consistent with others doing so as well.” An unconditional ban on physical assisted suicide and voluntary active euthanasia (as applied to competent persons who wish to avoid unendurable pain and/or inevitable death) significantly interferes with the notions of protected liberties, and therefore cannot be

In fact, many critics to legalization contend that the potential adverse effects are reason enough to ban both practices. Stephen G. Potts delves into the risks of legalization of euthanasia in his piece, “Objections to the Institutionalization of Euthanasia.” Potts outlines several effects that could appear following the widespread institutionalization of euthanasia, including the abandonment of hope, abuse of vulnerable persons, pressure on patients. He contends that offering physician assisted suicide and voluntary active euthanasia as legitimate options would effectively result in the abandonment of hope for patients with pessimistic prognoses even when recovery is possible (however unlikely). He acknowledges also the potential of abuse or pressure inflicted upon vulnerable persons that may come with legalization. Families or physicians could also place undue pressure on a patient to submit to euthanasia or assisted death to avoid financial, social, or professional burdens of care. As Potts and many others have argued, there obviously exists ways in which the legalization of physician assisted suicide and voluntary active euthanasia could incite adverse effects. This, however, fails at directly attacking the legitimacy of the practices themselves; the potential effects only emphasize the importance of