Since the beginning of time, murder was always seen as the vilest act a person can commit against another. Murder is illegal and immoral because it deprives a person’s right to live and causes great harm to their significant others. The process of euthanasia is somewhat similar to murder but still very different. Euthanasia consists of one person taking another’s life, however the major difference is that the individual actually wants to die. For this reason, if a person agrees to assist a willing individual in the process of death by euthanasia is it still considered immoral and unlawful? In order to analyze this, I will use three scenarios about people who desire to die by euthanasia, while explaining how it’s viewed through the theories of natural and positivist law as well as theories of philosophers Thomas Aquinas, H.L.A Hart, John Stuart Mill and Immanuel Kant. …show more content…
Yet, due to a deep, prolonged battle with depression he has made the decision to end his life by euthanasia. Assuming that he has exhausted all options in treating this disorder. One could say that he has the absolute right to do so, since he would be the only one harmed in the process. Yet, if I were to examine this from a natural law perspective my response to the person’s decision would be entirely different. Referring to An Analysis of Hume’s Essay by Tom Beauchamp, addresses the theories of philosopher David Hume but it does offer an insight into the concept of natural law theory. Beauchamp simply defines natural law theory as “human morality,” which is when humans use their instincts to figure out what is good and bad for them in life. As a matter of fact, people naturally tend to avoid anything that causes pain because it’s bad. So, the idea of perfectly healthy person wanting to intentionally kill himself by euthanasia seems completely out the