The etymology of euthanasia helps to reveal the meaning of the term.

Like most upstanding and

There are different ways to categorise the various types of euthanasia and it is critical to be
confident and familiar with these categorisations.

Voluntary Euthanasia

Voluntary euthanasia occurs when a person makes their own choice to have their life terminated
in order to avoid future suffering.

Non-Voluntary Euthanasia

Non-voluntary euthanasia occurs when a decision regarding premature and merciful death is
made by another person, because the individual to be euthanised is unable to make a decision for
themselves. This form of euthanasia is most commonly associated with young infants or patients
in a coma who cannot, due to the nature of their age or condition, make any decision for
themselves.

The above offers a differentiation of types of euthanasia in terms of the person making the
decision. In addition, we can differentiate between types of euthanasia based on
the method involved in ending a life.

Active Euthanasia

If a person is actively euthanised it means that their death was caused by external intervention
rather than natural causes, most likely through a lethal injection or the voluntary swallowing of a
deadly cocktail of drugs.

Passive Euthanasia

Passive euthanasia occurs when a person is allowed to die due to the deliberate withdrawal of
treatment that might keep them alive. Thus, a person who is passively euthanised is allowed to
die via natural causes even though methods to keep them alive might be available. A person who
has a life-support machine switched off, for example, dies via natural causes but only as a result
of a decision to allow natural causes to take effect.

Although euthanasia that is both voluntary and passive is not particularly common, euthanasia
could come in any combination of methods and decisionmakers as laid out. Legality of the forms
of euthanasia varies from nation to nation; Belgium allows for voluntary and active euthanasia,
the UK does not.
Arguments for and against euthanasia

There are many arguments that have been put forward for and against euthanasia. A few of the
main arguments for and against euthanasia are outlined below.

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. 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.

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 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. He illustrates this argument by making use of two hypothetical
scenarios. In the first scenario, Smith anticipates an inheritance should anything happen to his
six-year-old cousin, and ventures to drown the child while he takes his bath. In a similar
scenario, Jones stands to inherit a fortune should anything happen to his six-year-old cousin, and
upon intending to drown his cousin, he witnesses his cousin drown on his own by accident and
lets him die. Callahan highlights the fact that Rachels uses a hypothetical case where both parties
are morally culpable, which fails to support Rachels’ argument.
Another of his arguments is that active euthanasia is more humane than passive euthanasia as it
is ―a quick and painless‖ lethal injection whereas the latter can result in ―a relatively slow and
painful death.‖

Opponents of euthanasia argue that there is a clear moral distinction between actively
terminating a patient’s life and withdrawing or withholding treatment which ends a patient’s life.
Letting a patient die from an incurable disease may be seen as allowing the disease to be the
natural cause of death without moral culpability. Life-support treatment merely postpones death
and when interventions are withdrawn, the patient’s death is caused by the underlying disease.

Against

The sanctity of life

Central to the argument against euthanasia is society’s view of the sanctity of life, and this can
have both a secular and a religious basis. The underlying ethos is that human life must be
respected and preserved.

The Christian view sees life as a gif offerrom God, who ought not to be off ended by the taking
of that life. Similarly the Islamic faith says that “it is the sole prerogative of God to bestow life
and to cause death.” The withholding or withdrawal of treatment is permitted when it is futile, as
this is seen as allowing the natural course of death.

Euthanasia as murder

Society views an action which has a primary intention of killing another person as inherently
wrong, in spite of the patient’s consent. Callahan describes the practice of active voluntary
euthanasia as “consenting adult killing.”

Abuse of autonomy and human rights

While autonomy is used by advocates for euthanasia, it also features in the argument against
euthanasia. Kant and Mill believe that the principle of autonomy forbids the voluntary ending of
the conditions necessary for autonomy, which would occur by ending one’s life.

It has also been argued that patients’ requests for euthanasia are rarely autonomous, as most
terminally ill patients may not be of a sound or rational mind.

Callahan argues that the notion of self-determination requires that the right to lead our own lives
is conditioned by the good of the community, and therefore we must consider risk of harm to the
common good.

In relation to human rights, some critics of euthanasia argue that the act of euthanasia
contravenes the ―right to life‖. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights highlights the
importance that, “Everyone has the right to life.” [3] Right to life advocates dismiss claims there
is a right to die, which makes suicide virtually justifi able in any case. [8]

The role of palliative care

It is often argued that pain and suffering experienced by patients can be relieved by
administering appropriate palliative care, making euthanasia a futile measure. [3] According to
Norval and Gwynther [4] “requests for euthanasia are rarely sustained after good palliative
care is established.”

The rights of vulnerable patients

If euthanasia were to become an accepted practice, it may give rise to situations that undermine
the rights of vulnerable patients. [11] These include coercion of patients receiving costly
treatments to accept euthanasia or physician-assisted suicide.

The doctor-patient relationship and the physician’s role

Active voluntary euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide undermine the doctor-patient