Indian Journal of Medical Research

Running head: LEGALIZATION OF EUTHANASIA
Legalization of Euthanasia
Name of Student:
Name of University:
Author Note:

LEGALIZATION OF EUTHANASIA1
Introduction
Euthanasia is a controversial topic as far as professional and legal ethics are
concerned (Castro et al., 2016). There has been much scholarly debate regarding the role of
euthanasia, its potential use and abuse, and the general advantages or disadvantages it could
place in how society thinks and functions (Kenny, 2011). At present, euthanasia and
physician-assisted suicide remain illegal in several jurisdictions around the world, barring
certain exceptions. The question of euthanasia’s ethicality continues to invite interest and
investigation.
Through this paper, the author shall argue for legalizing the procedure of euthanasia
and physician-assisted suicide at the Federal and State levels throughout the United States. I
shall fortify the arguments under four heads: death as a natural process, the non-interference
in an individual’s choice to die, the right to die as a complementary aspect of the right to live
and the benefits of legalizing and regulating euthanasia. I shall also address possible counter-
arguments that can come under these categories.
Discussion
Death as a Natural Process
In the sphere of biology, one of the characteristics that define the condition of living
of an organic being is that of death; a living organism takes birth, grows up, reproduces and
dies. Hence, dying is an aspect of life that has been identified by human beings even before
the onset of human civilization. Death forms one of the cultural motifs that preface ritualistic
and traditional observances for many people. The nature of death and what follows after
death have been philosophical questions ever since the emergence of philosophy as a distinct
discipline and practice (Feifel, 2017). Therefore, it is undeniable that death is a natural
process.

LEGALIZATION OF EUTHANASIA2
Although death is recognized as a natural process both by science and cultural
narratives, it is also interesting to note that death has an amount of stigma attached to it. After
all, given that humans are social organisms which manifest as forming close familial and
social relationships, the death of a loved one can still be a traumatic experience even if its
inevitability finds acceptance (Chapple, Ziebland & Hawton, 2015). Indeed, opponents of
euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide point out that it is unethical to demand death, even
if it is a natural process because, throughout life, one accumulates and builds social
relationships. One’s demand for death would still cause suffering to those who have been
close to that individual (An, Lee, Yun & Heo, 2014).
However, while life experiences and the forging of social relationships is indeed a
significant aspect of human life, from an objective standpoint, death is still an inevitable
phenomenon that would result sooner and later. Advances in healthcare and medicine have
indeed increased an average person’s lifespan, and they can delay death, but death itself is an
unpreventable condition. However, the time and moment of a person’s death are unknown,
and it remains random. Therefore, an individual should have the power to decide when and
how to die (Doyal & Doyal, 2001).
Non-Interference in the Choice to Die
This argument follows from the preceding argument. Modern human society has been
built on the premise of individual choice and the sanctity of such choices taken by an
individual. As long as an individual’s choice does not interfere or obstruct the right of others
to exercise their right to choose, and does not harm other individuals, such choices need to be
respected. In the case of euthanasia, especially in the context of a person diagnosed with a
case of terminal illness, an individual is well within their rights to decide to end their life in
order to avoid suffering and avoid the suffering caused to their loved ones (Emmanuel, 2000).