Voluntary Active Euthanasia Analysis

In his article, Brock argues that voluntary active euthanasia is morally permissible. First off, Brock explains that the most important reason is to respect each individual 's right to self-determination. People are meant to have an inherent right that allows them to pursue the things that they feel constitute a good life. Brock explains how it can allow people near death to maintain their dignity and avoid suffering, as long as they have some competent decision making ability. Brock also notes that voluntary active euthanasia is morally permissible because it shows a sort of mercy to the individual that is dying. If somebody is not receiving life-sustaining treatment, but is still suffering greatly, then allowing voluntary active euthanasia would allow him or her to escape his or her suffering. They cannot simply "pull the plug" because they are just simply suffering with no life sustaining treatment being received, or even available. Brock also points to the fact that many people would refuse euthanasia, even if it were a legal option. He points to the Netherlands as being an euthanasia permitting country, and the number of people who choose euthanasia in the Netherlands is still very low. Brock continues to later say that statistics and certain polls have shown that the majority of the American

When a doctor administers the process or drugs that constitute voluntary active euthanasia, then that doctor acknowledges that it will end the individual’s life. Knowingly doing this, as a medical professional, is simply willingly killing an individual, which the social contract has always acknowledged as one of the worst acts an individual can commit. Intentional killing is always bad because it takes away everything that life entails, such as the pursuit of happiness and