Topic paper (Active Euthanasia) Philosophy has been one of the most read and the most discussed

art. One of the branches of the Philosophy is called Moral Philosophy. This is almost the same as Ethics. This branch of philosophy suggests, systemizes and defends the concepts of right and wrong conduct. One topic which has been discussed by Moral Philosophers is the permissibility of Active Euthanasia. The topic has been discussed over and over again, yet the philosophers of the world have not been able to reach a consensus on this issue. Euthanasia is of two types; Active Euthanasia where the physicians injects some drug to a patient, usually incompetent one, to get him rid off the pain or other burdens especially financial burden and Passive Euthanasia where the patient is just deprived off the necessities of life i.e. his feeding tube is removed or ventilator is removed etc. There was a time when both forms of Euthanasia were considered impermissible and were condemned all across the world. But then James Rachel defended the Passive Euthanasia in one of his papers. His paper didnt produce much affect at the time of its publishing but after some time it succeeded to make convince people about the permissibility of the Passive Euthanasia. Since then many countries have legalized Euthanasia. Holland, Mexico, Belgium etc. are few of them. And not to forget, the worlds second largest population India too has legalized passive Euthanasia. But what is the status of Active Euthanasia? Well, the most of the countries dont see it legitimate, but it is legitimate in some parts of the world e.g. Holland and state of Washington, USA etc. Those who are against Active euthanasia argue that it is equal to committing a murder. Well, this argument is quite a hollow one because hearing it from those who see

abortion as a legitimate process, is quite strange. It doesnt make sense, since there are good number of women who abort between 4th to 6th month of pregnancy, that too just because they dont want a child. If the law and moral philosophy doesnt have an objection on them, what ground they have to object on a person who is suffering from severe and inexpressible pain and wants to get rid of it through Euthanasia. I mean compare the healthy fetus against an ill man. Also, morally a murder is condemnable only if a person is killed against his will. If he himself is willing to die, there is something wrong for which he cant be blamed. Had the person willing to die due to some psychological issue, the critics could argue that the person should pay a visit to a psychologist. They could argue the same, if there was some social motive behind it, as in Japan, where suicide is taken as a symbol of pride. But the case under subjugation is of a patient who is fed up with his life since he knows that he cant be treated, his pain or illness I incurable and the only solution to get rid of it is to embrace death. If the person is willing, what objection do the critics have? It is strange to know about the opposition of Euthanasia from those countries which claim to be the human friendly and the most democratic ones, the ones who claim to be champions of personal as well as collective freedom. If a person has the freedom to live, freedom to pursuit a profession of his own choice, freedom of expression etc., he should have the freedom to die as well. Why ban this? Choosing to die is a big decision off course, but if someone wants to go for it, why should we oppose him? Off course legalizing the Active euthanasia doesnt mean that the physicians will be free to judge that which person needs to be operated for Euthanasia and then theyll perform it

without the permission of the patients. What I am suggesting as many others do is the provision of the right to choose by Euthanasia. There is a shortage of medical resources and other resources in the most of the countries of the world, especially the third world countries and the developing countries are deficient in health facilities. A person who is in coma and is lying on some bed in a hospital for years and there is no hope of his recovery according to medical experts, should be operated for euthanasia by the permission of his relatives so that the patient doesnt contribute to the lack of resources anymore. Someone may ask that where is the choice of the patient in all this process? The answer is that once the Active Euthanasia will be accepted, each person will be asked to choose the course of action of his choice in case he meets such a situation where he is not able to express his choice. You can call it a sort of legal will. There is another positive point in giving the right of voluntary Active Euthanasia to the patients and that is the service of medical sciences by donating his working organs to deserving patients or for the research purpose etc. Or alternatively, they can sell their organs after embracing the death via euthanasia and they can make a will to give the amount to be given to their family or relatives who are bearing the expenses of their treatment. This thing will help those families which have such a patient who needs and demands euthanasia, and the family has already shed a good amount in the name of his treatment, with the hope of recovery. Those saying that Euthanasia is an insult to humanity are also wrong since Euthanasia is meant to prevent the patient from being dragged to the death in a miserable way. Euthanasia means a quiet and peaceful death, procurement from all the pains. As a

matter of fact, Id call that situation an insult to the humanity where a person is suffering the unimaginable pain, he cannot be treated nor his chances of recovery are bright and he is not being given the right to get rid of the pain by his own choice, through Active euthanasia.

References

Onwuteaka-Philipsen, B. D., van der Heide, A., Koper, D., Keij-Deerenberg, I., Rietjens, J. A., Rurup, M. L., ... & van der Maas, P. J. (2003). Euthanasia and other end-of-life decisions in the Netherlands in 1990, 1995, and 2001. The Lancet, 362(9381), 395-399. Rachels, J. (1986). The end of life: euthanasia and morality. Brock, D. W. (1992). Voluntary active euthanasia. Hastings Center Report,22(2), 10-22. van Bogaert, L. J. (2011). Voluntary Active Euthanasia: The Debate. Edited by Josef Kue, 65.