In an ideal world, people would not have to make decisions as painful as whether or not to end another person’s life as an act of mercy. But in reality, this is one of the most important and painful decisions a loved one or a physician can make. Decisions regarding ‘the right to die’ come from complex sets of diverse factors that involve an array of ethical and moral complications. Furthermore, because decisions regarding euthanasia involve rational thought as well as strong emotion, this is a naturally volatile issue.

Euthanasia is a subject that has long been debated all over the world due to the ethical and moral debate that accompanies this issue. The recent release from prison of Dr. Jack Kevorkian, (or the man commonly known as “Dr. Death”) has brought the controversy to the front burner once again. Involved in the arguments are the physicians, the patients, the lawyers, and even those who may have not had personal experience with the practice of euthanasia but are also included through their own cultural, social, and even religious backgrounds.

In order to understand the ethical implications of euthanasia, it is important to have a clear picture of the difference between passive and active euthanasia. Passive euthanasia simply means that you are allowing an individual die, for example complying with a cancer patient’s request to stop chemotherapy. Active euthanasia involves actually participating in a “mercy killing” by doing something to immediately end the person’s life, such as removing their life support machine or giving them toxic medication.

In understanding the implications of this issue it is also important to realize that the terms “assisted suicide” and “euthanasia” are not entirely synonymous. The difference is that in assisted suicide, a physician, or other party, provides a terminally ill patient with the means to take his or her own life. In contrast, euthanasia involves the physician actually causing the patient’s death.

At the heart of the debate about euthanasia are its ethical implications. Opposition to the right-to-die movement has come from many sources, including the right-to-life movement. Opponents argue that suicide is wrong on religious and theological grounds, as well as being harmful to the community and the common good.

Others have argued that no human being has a right to decide, for themselves or for others, when life is no longer worth living. Opponents argue that there is a danger that such decisions may be made on unethical or ulterior motives. Thus, for example, one might agree to end the life of a patient whose continual stay in the hospital is a financial burden to his or her family or when members of the family stand to benefit financially by inheritance. Some even argue that once a society agrees that at some stage a life is not worth sustaining, and that once passive euthanasia becomes acceptable, the next step will be active euthanasia, which in turn can easily lead to forced or involuntary euthanasia.

The primary argument in support of legalizing active voluntary euthanasia is rooted in the premise of autonomy or what is also known as the right to self-determination. According to this principle, every person’s life is valuable but so is his capacity to make his own decisions. Therefore, proponents of legalization claim that no one should tell another person what they can and cannot do with their own body as long as their choice does not hurt anyone else or interfere with anyone else’s fundamental human rights.

Advocates of legalization also maintain that the current legal prohibition of active voluntary euthanasia is an indefensible infringement of a human being’s right to freedom of choice. Many equate this ban with tyrannical rule because it is based on attempts to control individuals who are perfectly capable of making their own decisions. Therefore, to support the patient’s right to self-determination, advocates believe that physicians should not be held legally liable for complying with requests of patients who have the mental capacity to make this decision

Ultimately euthanasia, whether passive, active or assisted, is an ongoing legal and ethical controversy that is unlikely to find any type of reasonable resolution in the near future. As long as people have different cultural beliefs and backgrounds, diverse experiences and varying attitudes, debate over this issue will likely continue to thrive.