Need a perfect paper? Place your first order and save 5% with this code:   SAVE5NOW

Euthanasia / Right To Die

Euthanasia, often known as physician-aided death, assisted suicide, or the right to die, is a very contentious and complex subject that has been discussed for decades. It refers to purposely taking someone’s life to eliminate their suffering due to an incurable disease or condition.

Euthanasia has historically been seen as a mercy killing, with ancient Greek and Roman societies permitting it under specific conditions. “euthanasia” refers to deliberately taking a person’s life to stop suffering. It is derived from the Greek terms “eu” (good) and “thanatos” (death). Euthanasia has a long history and was occasionally regarded as a mercy killing in ancient Greek and Roman society (Sethi & Singh, 2021).

Euthanasia was regarded as a dignified and humane method of putting an end to the suffering of terminally sick patients in ancient Greece. Aristotle, a philosopher, believed that it was occasionally necessary to take a person’s life if they were in excruciating suffering, provided it was done in a kind and dignified way. On the subject of euthanasia, early Christian thought was divided. Euthanasia was regarded as a sin by some Christians, but it was viewed as a kindness by others. As the Christian Church began to consider euthanasia sinful, most nations outlawed the practice.

Similarly, euthanasia was once more accepted in some circles during the Renaissance. The morality of ending the lives of the terminally ill was a topic of discussion among physicians and philosophers; some said that doing so was a compassionate act. The concept of individual autonomy and the right to self-determination gained popularity during the Enlightenment. According to philosophers like John Locke, people have the right to manage their own lives, including ending them if they are in excruciating pain or suffering. Nevertheless, with the development of new medical technologies and the rise in the number of people with fatal illnesses, euthanasia became a contentious topic in modern times during the 20th century (Sethi & Singh, 2021).

The growing number of patients with terminal or incurable illnesses facing a lengthy and painful death makes euthanasia important in today’s healthcare environment. Medical technology advancements have increased life expectancy, but frequently at the expense of increased misery. This prompts many people to question their freedom to choose their death and the quality of their existence. End-of-life care is crucial due to the ageing population and mounting pressure on healthcare systems. While euthanasia gives those who want to end their suffering a choice, it also poses complex issues regarding medical ethics, patient autonomy, and the function of healthcare professionals (Minocha & Mishra, 2019).

Additionally, euthanasia is significant because it emphasizes the value of having dialogues about death and dying. When faced with a severe illness, many people find it difficult to talk about their end-of-life wishes and are frequently unprepared for the choices they may need to make. Euthanasia compels society to confront these challenging questions and reflect on the best approach to alleviate people’s suffering. Euthanasia gives a chance to re-evaluate what defines the quality of life and to contemplate a more compassionate approach to end-of-life care in today’s healthcare environment, where the focus is frequently on extending life at any cost. It is an important topic that will be argued and discussed for years.

On the topic of euthanasia, the medical community is divided, with many medical organizations and individual doctors expressing opposing viewpoints. While some medical professionals oppose euthanasia on moral and ethical grounds, others embrace it to end suffering and respect patient autonomy. Euthanasia supporters contend that it is a humane approach to patients experiencing intolerable suffering and is in line with medical ethics’ ideals of relieving suffering and respecting patient autonomy. Additionally, they contend that it is a strategy to guarantee that patients have a calm and respectable death. The Royal Dutch Medical Association is one medical body that supports euthanasia as a way to end the suffering of terminally ill patients who are in immense pain and have no other options. They think that with the proper protections in place to protect patients, physician-assisted suicide can be done in a way that is both morally and safely acceptable (Minocha & Mishra, 2019).

Euthanasia is opposed on the grounds that it violates the sanctity of life and the fundamental tenet of the Hippocratic Oath, which is to do no harm. Additionally, they worry that weak patients could be forced into choosing euthanasia and that the practice could be abused. For instance, both the World Medical Association and the American Medical Association oppose physician-assisted suicide. They hold that a doctor’s primary duty is to safeguard and preserve life and that willfully ending a patient’s life is against the doctor’s job. Some medical experts also choose a neutral approach, appreciating the intricacy and complexity of the controversy and agreeing that both sides have strong points to make. They contend that each patient’s needs and circumstances should be considered when determining whether or not to support euthanasia (Sethi & Singh, 2021).

People on both sides of the argument have strong opinions on the sensitive topic of euthanasia. There are a variety of views on this subject, from those who favour legalizing euthanasia to those who are against it. Proponents contend that the right to self-determination and individual liberty is at stake. They claim that everyone should be free to choose how they want to die, especially if they are terminally ill and in agony. They argue that euthanasia can be carried out painlessly and under conditions that prevent patients from being harmed.

On the other hand, those opposed to euthanasia claim that willfully ending a life under any circumstances is morally wrong. They contend that euthanasia is easily exploited, resulting in unintentional deaths and endangering vulnerable groups like the elderly and disabled. They suggest that there are more approaches, such as palliative care and pain management, to managing suffering towards the end of life. On moral and ethical grounds, religious organizations like the Catholic Church generally oppose euthanasia, while other human rights organizations view it as a violation of the right to life. People on both sides of the euthanasia debate have strong and firmly held ideas, and the discussion is complicated and passionate (Minocha & Mishra, 2019).

Euthanasia legalization is still a contentious topic in many nations, with some doing so and others not. The argument over euthanasia is still going on, and while some countries have authorized it in some situations, many others haven’t. Euthanasia is permitted and governed in a few nations, including the Netherlands, Belgium, and Luxembourg. Other countries, like Switzerland, allow assisted suicide but not euthanasia. While some states have authorized physician-assisted dying, most states in the US still prohibit euthanasia. Euthanasia is a controversial topic that will probably remain so as long as society struggles with these problematic ethical issues (Sethi & Singh, 2021).

Euthanasia is a hotly debated topic since it poses many ethical and legal issues. The main ethical and legal concerns about the essence of euthanasia are as follows: The right to life is one of the leading legal questions regarding euthanasia. The argument put up by euthanasia’s opponents is that it breaches everyone’s right to life and that it is never ethical to willfully take someone’s life, even if they give their agreement. Euthanasia advocates contend that the right to self-determination and individual autonomy is at stake.

Medical ethics: Euthanasia raises moral concerns regarding the role of medical personnel in taking a patient’s life. Both the World Medical Association and the American Medical Association oppose physician-assisted suicide, claiming that it is improper for a doctor to take someone’s life deliberately. Criminal law: Euthanasia is prohibited in many nations and is punishable by harsh legal consequences, including jail. A change in criminal law would be necessary to make euthanasia legal; this would be very contentious and vulnerable to legal challenges.

Abuse and coercion issues: There are worries that euthanasia could be used abusively, resulting in unintentional deaths or putting at-risk groups like the elderly and disabled in danger. Euthanasia may, according to proponents, be carried out safely and with measures in place to protect patients from abuse.

Religion: The sanctity of life and the role of divine intervention in death are among the many philosophical and spiritual issues raised by euthanasia. Religious beliefs and ideals may influence the public’s perception of euthanasia and the legal system. Sanctity of life: Euthanasia presents moral issues regarding the value of life and the ethical ramifications of purposefully ending a person’s life. While some people hold the view that life is sacred and should never be taken, others think everyone has the right to end their suffering. Autonomy-related issues: Euthanasia questions people’s right to personal autonomy and the choice between life and death. Some people think it’s okay to choose how they pass away, while others believe the government should always put life protection first (Sethi & Singh, 2021).

Euthanasia is still contentious and divisive, and different countries have different views and legal frameworks. On the one hand, euthanasia’s supporters contend that it is a matter of personal autonomy and the right to self-determination, allowing people to end their suffering respectably. Opponents argue that euthanasia violates the sanctity of life and the right to life and can be abused or used to take people’s lives in vulnerable situations. Numerous legal and moral issues are raised by the debate over euthanasia, including the sanctity of life, the place of doctors and other medical professionals, the criminalization of the practice, abuse and coercion concerns, and the role of religion.

There is still no amicable agreement on these issues, including whether euthanasia is morally acceptable or legal. Euthanasia legalization is ultimately a complex and intensely personal decision that involves balancing several conflicting moral, ethical, and legal considerations. No matter how one feels about the subject, it’s important to have respectful, informed conversations and consider other people’s perspectives and experiences.


Minocha, V. R., & Mishra, A. (2019). Euthanasia: Ethical Challenges of Shift from “Right to Die” to “Objective Decision.” Annals of the National Academy of Medical Sciences (India)55(02), 110–115.

Sethi, S., & Singh, A. (2021). Euthanasia: The New Phase of Right to Die. Issue 5 Int’l JL Mgmt. & Human.4, 953.


Don't have time to write this essay on your own?
Use our essay writing service and save your time. We guarantee high quality, on-time delivery and 100% confidentiality. All our papers are written from scratch according to your instructions and are plagiarism free.
Place an order

Cite This Work

To export a reference to this article please select a referencing style below:

Copy to clipboard
Copy to clipboard
Copy to clipboard
Copy to clipboard
Copy to clipboard
Copy to clipboard
Copy to clipboard
Copy to clipboard
Need a plagiarism free essay written by an educator?
Order it today

Popular Essay Topics