Euthanasia is a prominent topic for life and death morality issues. In most basic terms, euthanasia is the act of killing someone or letting them die at their request because they are going to die soon due to a terminal or chronic illness and by killing or letting them die, one is granting them an act of kindness. The primary questions involved in a situation of this sort is whether it is moral to be the person who kills or lets one die at their request and secondly should persons be legally permitted to be killed or let die in such a fashion? Another question one can think about in regards to euthanasia, but that won’t necessarily be addressed in this essay is whether a distinction should be drawn between active and passive euthanasia? Active euthanasia would be defined as a physician or other designated person killing another via lethal injection or other means at the request of the person dying. Passive euthanasia would be letting a person die by deprival of food, oxygen, or necessary medication at that person’s request.

To address the question of whether it is moral to kill someone or let them die at their request, considerations need to be taken. The intent of the person requesting to be killed or allowed to die is crucial in determining the morality of the person doing the killing or letting die because the moral action is theirs and the dilemma lies with them. When a person is stricken with a terminal or chronic illness, their quality of life can be significantly lowered due to pain levels and/or a diminished capacity to participate in life the same way that they once did before the onset of their illness. If a person elects to end their life through active or passive euthanasia, the action of their physician or caregiver acting as the agent of their death is viewed as a mercy killing or an act of kindness. The act of the person electing to be killed or allowed to die in the cases of terminal or chronic illness and pain who are deemed competent to make the choice to end their life should be seen as a final act of personal freedom and liberty of the individual to control their life.

Now whether or not euthanasia in either an active or passive method should be legally allowed to individuals is still a debate. If the situation has the most if not all of features discussed by Rachels which include that “the patient would have been deliberately killed; the patient was going to die soon anyway; the patient was suffering terrible pain; the patient asked to be killed; and the killing would have been an act of mercy…to prevent further needless suffering,” then the action should clearly regarded as moral euthanasia and not an act of homicide which is decidedly immoral. But if the individual in severe and chronic pain who wishes death as a means of putting an end to the terrible suffering they are enduring as well as reaching their inevitable death more quickly than otherwise would be achieved, euthanasia is morally acceptable. If the individual is in an irreversible coma or similar state with no possible chance of recovery, it seems selfish to artificially maintain this individual’s life and euthanasia is again the best possible solution to again reach an inevitable death more quickly and to allow medical resources be used for other individuals whose circumstances could be changed by such an act.