Personally, I believe that we as humans have a lot of autonomy for things in life. I agree with what Thomas More has to say about euthanasia. He says that if a patient suffers a torturing and lingering pain and there is no hope of ease or recovery, they may choose to die rather than live in misery. It is offered to animals so it should be to humans as well. John Stuart Mill also offers a good point in his book ‘On Liberty’. In that it states that individuals should have free autonomy. We have control over our body in matters of life, so we should have control over dying.
Christians believe that euthanasia is a sin and they imply that life is a sacred gift from god. They think that God created every person, whether sick, healthy, disabled or able-bodied and that practicing euthanasia does not show any kind of respect to God. In fact they believe it goes against the commandment ‘Do not murder’. The sanctity of life is a huge factor for a Christian and that means 'the quality of being sacred or holy’. They believe there is something special or holy about human life. Every human, Christians believe life is special gift from God so therefore humans should not have the right to die voluntarily.
However, there are millions of people who are atheists and live a secular life. This would mean that they wouldn’t rely on a religion compelling their thoughts and ideas on euthanasia. As I am a fairly secular person myself I find it hard to reason what other factors apart from the law and religion interfere with a persons right to die.
Other secular opponents however, could argue that whatever rights we have are limited by our obligations. The decision to die by euthanasia will affect other people - our family and friends, and healthcare professionals - and we must balance the consequences for them (guilt, grief, anger) against our rights. We should also take account of our obligations to society, and balance our individual right to die against any bad consequences that it might have for the community in general. This is perhaps something Peter Singer would say as a utilitarian. It is understandable that as a loved part of your family, you would try and consider euthanasia as a means to end your families suffering as well, but as it is your life at risk you should really prioritise your wants.
On the other hand, euthanasia could possibly entail responsibilities. This is what Rowan Williams stated in his article. Considering euthanasia wouldn’t necessarily mean that you would be deciding the outcome. For example, with passive or non-voluntary euthanasia, the patient themselves would not be the individual choosing their fate it would be either a doctor or part of the family etc. This means that responsibility to kill would be passed on to these people. Would this then mean that these people are acquiring the right to kill or are they just helping the suffering individual?
Retrospectively I cannot come to a definite concluding answer to this argument, although I do have some strong thoughts on the topic. At first glance I do believe that we should have the right to die in some circumstances. A healthy living person should never really have the right to die, as their excuse couldn’t be justifiable. Also if they by some chance had the opportunity of euthanasia by lying they could actually be using medicines that could help end a real ill persons life. Many families are fortunate enough not to have any ill members of their family, but there are those unfortunate families also. If a member of your family became terminally ill, you would like to have the option of them having the right to die if it got unbearable for them. You would also hope to have that choice if you were to become ill one day. Having the right to die could also stop people from committing suicide in negative ways i.e. overdose. If they felt they had a right to die, they could possible embark on having a more respectful and peaceful death.
