In many countries active euthanasia, or having your life ended by a doctor, is already legal under certain conditions. Fact is for some this is already too much and for others the laws are too strict and more people should have the right to it.
Only the individual can tell when he/she cannot go on. When people cannot endure their pain and there is no cure, it might be easy to call this God’s will end let them suffer.
Now many religious arguments are against euthanasia stating it is escaping God’s will. It is also the argument the Catholic church used against suicide and why victims of it were for a long time not to be buried in Sacred ground.
But is escapism not a twisted argument for people who believe in God, while some claim that religion is escapism from reality? Changing the mind of people who oppose euthanasia should not be considered. It is their full right not to want it and escapism is something we all need, unless we also want to ban art.
Escapism is making life bearable. In some cases it might not be possible to give somebody a considered bearable anymore. Would you chose to suffer endurable pain that will not get any better?
Most important is that doctor and patient agree together in this matter. There are people who still oppose euthanasia and we should respect their feelings. A doctor who opposes to perform euthanasia should not be forced to do it, but may not stop a colleague to help a patient who asks for it. Same as a doctor might not force his view on a patient.
Even when legalised it is hard to find a compromise on what should be ethical and what not. Minors and mental patients are still discussed.
But considering the moral instead the legal issues in favor of euthanasia, the main argument should be if you if you define life as a quality or just as a biological fact.
Maybe we should consider it as a combination of both. It is clear you can not live as a biological being when certain physical elements don’t work. But what about the spirit? Should it be ruled out? Is helping a patient only helping to maintain the body?
Biologically seen yes, but ethically? Is it keeping alive an old women with a rotting leg who suffers endurable pain? Her health did not allow amputation surgery. She was too weak to eat and begged to die. Sometimes she was screaming like a wounded animal. But the doctor wanted to feed her through a tube, so she would live longer. She wanted a lethal shot, what was still illegal in those days. Was this doctor paying her a favor by forcing her to eat?
Now we can condemn suicide, we can condemn euthanasia, but ever considered some may condemn life itself? Do we really know what goes on in the mind of another and do we have the right to make it up for them?
Some see any artificial life’s ending as murder, but reality is not black and white. Having a person’s life ended by a doctor something nobody considers the best thing, but maybe the least worse. It might be easy to oppose this, when you are a normal, healthy person. When you suffer, you might change your limits and maybe even your thoughts.
And the last argument people opposing euthanasia use is that is it selfish. They claim that those who chose it, want to live, but do not want to be a burden for others. It is a funny way to call somebody seflish. All sane people want to live, also those who chose euthanasia. That is why we should not condemn it.
The argument that we should get rid of all elderly, disabled or whoever might be a burden to society is a selfish one. Promoting euthanasia is wrong, but offer it as a chance, as an alternative to a life in agony or suicide. Consider it as the gray between the black and white.