PHIL 320 Final Paper: Argument for Legalizing Euthanasia Nationwide

This paper presents a comprehensive argument for the legalization of euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide in the United States, addressing the ethical and philosophical dimensions of end-of-life choices. The author argues that death is a natural process and that individuals should have the right to choose when and how they die, especially in cases of terminal illness. The paper emphasizes the right to die as a complementary aspect of the right to live, highlighting the importance of individual autonomy and the alleviation of suffering. The author supports the arguments with the benefits of legalizing and regulating euthanasia, including the reduction of suffering, the prevention of illegal methods, and the establishment of a legal framework. Counterarguments are addressed, and the paper concludes with a strong case for legalization, emphasizing the importance of agency and dignity for terminally ill patients. The paper also references the assignment brief which required an abstract and bibliography for the final paper.

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

1LEGALIZATION OF EUTHANASIA
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.

2LEGALIZATION OF EUTHANASIA
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).

3LEGALIZATION OF EUTHANASIA
However, opponents of euthanasia argue that choices of human beings have the
potential to manifest as a consequence of manipulation, coercion and duress. They state that
in this case, an individual would not be exercising their ability to choose a course of action if
their choice is forced, nonconsensual and infringes upon an individual's right to think and
choose a course of action that they deem fit (Bickenbach, 2015). Indeed, such an argument
does seem to point out a glaring loophole in the very concept of euthanasia and its
legalization anywhere in the world. A person could hence be murdered for the material
benefit of someone else, and then pass off the murder as an act of euthanasia.
The argument that posits the potential abuse of euthanasia is, ironically, also the
argument through which one can argue in favour of legalizing euthanasia and establishing
legal and regulatory guidelines to control and specify the conditions under which euthanasia
can be legally permissible without any entanglement of criminal or civil prosecutions. The
right of individuals to make their choices, when fortified with legal guarantees and
safeguards, prevents the abuse and misuse of making a choice.
Right to Die as a Complement to the Right to Live
The right to live is an established convention in constitutional governance, political
thought and the notion of human rights. Throughout human history, there have been atrocities
which involved the killing of individuals in the context of conflicts, warfare and massacres
motivated by a variety of factors. Even though death is an inevitable phenomenon that cannot
be subjected to control, such atrocities denied the murdered individual’s right to live by
disregarding their choice in desiring to lead their lives as they seemed fit. It is for this reason
that the right to life has assumed such a significance in international and national legislation.
However, as the right to live has been secured and enforced by several national and
international agencies, it is now imperative that a theory regarding the right to die be

4LEGALIZATION OF EUTHANASIA
established and expanded upon. The right to live hinges upon that the person in question
chooses to live their lives only if the quality of life that they experience has an overall
positive effect and ensures their well-being. In the case of terminal illness, a patient may
experience their quality of life to decrease and deteriorate, in which case their right to die
would assume more considerable significance than their right to live (Math & Chaturvedi,
2012).
Opponents of legalizing euthanasia contend that human life possesses an incalculable
value, and hence it is impossible for a single individual to appreciate the significance of
living their lives. However, such arguments stem from a Judeo-Christian interpretation of
life, which prohibits suicide as it is believed that only God can deny a person of their life.
Such an opinion is, in the present era of society, incompatible with the secular
conceptualization of human rights. Hence, the right to die falls within one of the acceptable
arguments to incorporate the right to die as a human right, as a complement to the right to
live.
Benefits of Legalization and Regulation
There are tangible benefits when it comes to legalizing euthanasia and physician-
assisted suicide in the United States. First, it would alleviate the suffering of individuals who
are diagnosed either with a terminal illness or with a terminal stage of an illness. Thus, they
would have legal remedies and procedures at hand by which they can seek to lessen the
amount of suffering that they experience, as a viable alternative to palliative care approaches.
It would also allow the families of terminally-ill patients to have some closure, and prevent
them from seeing their loved ones to experience pain and suffering as the patient nears their
death.

5LEGALIZATION OF EUTHANASIA
Second, it would prevent patients suffering from a terminal condition to seek other
measures which are not legal. Legalizing euthanasia would minimize the complications and
anxieties experienced by terminally-ill patients and present them with a safe and secure
procedure through which they can choose to put avoid unnecessary suffering and exercise
their right to die in the event of their quality of life decreasing due to their disease or illness.
Besides, resorting to euthanasia would be economically viable as palliative care often causes
the spending of financial resources behind keeping the individual alive and without any
suffering or pain.
Third, providing a legal and regulatory framework for euthanasia would provide the
legal grounds and conditions for euthanasia to be held valid and not be deemed as
manslaughter or murder in a court of law. Hence, legalization would also prevent the
potential for euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide to be misused for serving the vested
interests of specific individuals.
Conclusion
In conclusion, the arguments provided in the paper make a compelling case for
legalizing euthanasia throughout the United States. The arguments also serve as viable
counter-arguments against the polemics of those who oppose euthanasia and seek to keep it
illegalized, thereby causing an immense amount of unnecessary suffering and removing the
agency from terminally-ill patients, who wish to exercise their choice to avoid pain and
suffering by ending their life on their own terms rather than waiting for an unpredictable
demise after experiencing an untold amount of suffering and inconvenience.
Legalizing euthanasia would not just provide a legal and secure alternative for
terminally-ill patients to end their suffering, but it would also give them the agency to choose

6LEGALIZATION OF EUTHANASIA
how they would like to end their lives and give them a sense of dignity and empowerment
over something as inevitable as death.
References
An, A. R., Lee, J. K., Yun, Y. H., & Heo, D. S. (2014). Terminal cancer patients’ and their
primary caregivers’ attitudes toward hospice/palliative care and their effects on actual
utilization: a prospective cohort study. Palliative medicine, 28(7), 976-985.
Bickenbach, J. E. (2015). Disability and life-ending decisions. In Physician Assisted Suicide
(pp. 123-132). Routledge.
Castro, M. P. R. D., Antunes, G. C., Marcon, L. M. P., Andrade, L. S., Rückl, S., & Andrade,
V. L. Â. (2016). Euthanasia and assisted suicide in western countries: a systematic
review. Revista Bioética, 24(2), 355-367.
Chapple, A., Ziebland, S., & Hawton, K. (2015). Taboo and the different death? Perceptions
of those bereaved by suicide or other traumatic death. Sociology of health & illness,
37(4), 610-625.
Doyal, L., & Doyal, L. (2001). Why active euthanasia and physician assisted suicide should
be legalised. BMJ, 323(7321), 1079-1080. doi:10.1136/bmj.323.7321.1079
Emanuel, E. J. (2000). Attitudes and desires related to euthanasia and physician-assisted
suicide among terminally ill patients and their caregivers. JAMA, 284(19), 2460.
doi:10.1001/jama.284.19.2460
Feifel, H. (2017). Death. In Taboo topics (pp. 8-21). Routledge.

7LEGALIZATION OF EUTHANASIA
Kenny, N. P. (2011). Responding to requests for euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide.
Palliative Care, 284-299. doi:10.1016/b978-1-4377-1619-1.00021-4
Math, S. B., & Chaturvedi, S. K. (2012). Euthanasia: Right to life vs right to die. Indian
Journal of Medical Research, 136(6), 899-902.