Voluntary active euthanasia is a topic that raises many difficult moral questions. After considering arguments for and against this practice, however, it can be shown that voluntary active euthanasia is morally permissible--so long as it meets the terms as defined below. It is permissible because the autonomy of the individual allows him or her to decide whether extreme pain and suffering is a condition that he or she wishes to endure. But, since the practice involves both the individual who will die, and the person who ends that individual's life, it is necessary to consider the moral position of both parties. In the case of voluntary active euthanasia, the autonomy of the individual takes precedence over the usually morally impermissible act of taking another person's life. In addition, it must be asked whether the practice necessarily lends itself to abuses that could not be controlled. If this were the case, the social impact of the practice would render it morally impermissible, even if, in ideal cases, it was morally permissible. Arguments for and against the moral permissibility of voluntary active euthanasia are considered. For the most part, the objections to the practice ignore the important question of human autonomy, while the arguments in favor of the practice are based primarily on this criterion. Once autonomy is given the central position, and the avoidance of pain and suffering is shown to be a rational option, voluntary active euthanasia is shown to morally permissible.
Euthanasia is an act that is defined in terms of the reasons for which it is performed. It refers to those cases in which a person is killed, or is allowed to die, because he is suffering from an illness, injury, or other condition from which he or she cannot reasonably expect to recover. Voluntary euthanasia refers only to those cases in which the competent individual has made the conscious choice of euthanasia. This may include eithe...