Pro-Euthanasia arguments have stemmed from the following views: People have an explicit right to die by implication of other human rights, being construed as a private matter and there is no harm to others hence should have no interference from the state and other people. Human beings have the right to die when and how they want to: an excerpt from the Independent, March 2002 states that “in cases where there are no dependents who might exert pressure one way or the other, the right of the individual to choose should be paramount. So long as the patient is lucid and his or her intent is clear beyond doubt, there need be no further questions (7).
Without creating (or acknowledging) a specific right to die, it is possible to argue that other human rights ought to be taken to include this right.
The right to life includes the right to die: not just a mere existence but a right to life with a minimum quality and value. Individuals have the right to try and make the events in their lives as good as possible inclusive of dying. If the process of death is unpleasant, people should have the right to shorten it, and thus reduce the unpleasantness. Though individuals have obligations to family and society at large, nonetheless these obligations do not outweigh a person 's right to refuse medical treatment that they do not want (7).
Every patient has the freedom of choice and should be given that choice. The patient is the one who experiences the suffering and fully comprehends the