Title: The ethics of euthanasia | Australian Medical Student Journal
Headings: The ethics of euthanasia
The ethics of euthanasia
Nargus Ebrahimi
Introduction
Defining euthanasia
Legal situation of active voluntary euthanasia and assisted suicide
Arguments for and against euthanasia
For
Against
Conclusion
Conflicts of interest
Correspondence
References

Content: For
Rights-based argument
Advocates of euthanasia argue that a patient has the right to make the decision about when and how they should die, based on the principles of autonomy and self-determination. [ 1, 5] Autonomy is the concept that a patient has the right to make decisions relating to their life so long as it causes no harm to others. [ 4] They relate the notion of autonomy to the right of an individual to control their own body, and should have the right to make their own decisions concerning how and when they will die. Furthermore, it is argued that as part of our human rights, there is a right to make our own decisions and a right to a dignified death. [ 1]
Beneficence
It is said that relieving a patient from their pain and suffering by performing euthanasia will do more good than harm. [ 4] Advocates of euthanasia express the view that the fundamental moral values of society, compassion and mercy, require that no patient be allowed to suffer unbearably, and mercy killing should be permissible. [ 4]
The difference between active euthanasia and passive euthanasia
Supporters of euthanasia claim that active euthanasia is not morally worse than passive euthanasia – the withdrawal or withholding of medical treatments that result in a patient’s death. In line with this view, it is argued that active euthanasia should be permitted just as passive euthanasia is allowed. James Rachels [12] is a well-known proponent of euthanasia who advocates this view. He states that there is no moral difference between killing and letting die, as the intention is usually similar based on a utilitarian argument.