Voluntary active euthanasia: justifications and regulations

Abstract

Voluntary active euthanasia is the most controversial category of euthanasia, which itself causes a great amount of discussions. This thesis defends the position that voluntary active euthanasia should be considered morally and legally permissible under certain circumstances in which it becomes the “most appropriate medical treatment”. I argue that since voluntary active euthanasia is a medical procedure, its moral value should be assigned the same way as any other medical procedure’s moral value. In that sense, the act of voluntary active euthanasia does not have a moral value by itself but as long as it is the “most appropriate medical treatment” in a given case, the procedure is morally permissible. In order to defend this position, I evaluate the most important objections concerning medicine, society, and state and show that these objections either do not have strong bases or the same difficulties are present in many other invasive and critical medical procedures as well. Since many arguments against the legalization of the procedure point out a possible slippery slope, I also discuss iv the existing regulations about voluntary active euthanasia and physician assisted suicide to show that as long as the aim and scope of euthanasia is defined clearly the problematic conditions can be eliminated or regulated strictly to prevent abuses.