Many religions do not believe in the god of the catholic faith. Atheists do not believe that a god even exists. Whether they are right or wrong in their beliefs is not the question, but rather is it justified for atheists to perform euthanasia? Should atheists have the legal right of
euthanasia and followers of god be excluded from this right? This leads me to consider that following in the path of god only inhibits your true soul to act within your own set of morals and
dignity for fear of displeasing your maker. Atheists, conversely, can lead a more just life because they do not set upon themselves the same confines that hinder followers of god. In the case of euthanasia, an atheist would be permitted to follow his will while a catholic would be advised to follow the will of god. Those who are not allowed to control their own fate are led down a path of injustice caused by their belief of god. It would also be unjust to force an atheist to follow natural law because it is not of his belief system. Yet, we cannot impose separate laws to each class based on their belief system. To treat each class or religious group differently would be a universal injustice. God, to the best of my knowledge, created everyone to be equal. In here lies the paradox of Catholicism. This injustice would cause the teachings of god to be contradictory to the natural belief system of Catholicism. Therefore, it would be in the best interest of the state to allow a person of will to control their fate and not put your faith in the will of natural law.
An argument that is also brought up against euthanasia is the provisos of its policy. Who will be permitted to die and where do we draw the line? Predominantly, will euthanasia cause a decline in society? This is quite an easy problem to elucidate. To begin with, a person is born into this world with autonomous morals, not from society, but from his will. From this will comes the value of freedom and selecting ones ends. Society must respect your will and allow you to decide your fate. If society tries to rule the will of a person, they subsequently choose to eradicate his categorical imperative and interfere with the intrinsic moral values that individuals justly deserve. This would be unjustified for the individual and for the state as well. Therefore, we must respect the decision of individuals when they decide that euthanasia would be in their best interest. Yet, there should be a fine line drawn by the state on when euthanasia should be permissible. A law should state that euthanasia could be carried out on patients where death is imminent. It should also be permissible to those who are suffering physically or mentally, with no hope of recovery or rehabilitation. If a patient can recover from their malady without using extreme measures that will produce additional pain as a result of his rehabilitation nor without a chance of failure in their recovery, euthanasia can be deemed impermissible and therefore not allowed to be carried out by the patient or state. It should be the job of the state and state appointed physician to decide on who can be permitted to die by active means and deem it illegal if the state does not give permission to have a patient put to death.
It is illogical to believe that euthanasia will cause a corrosion of morality in society. An individual will have the option to pass on only if it falls within the realm of its legality. Society will be there to make sure it is carried out legally while not meddling with the moral values of the individual. Capital punishment has been required in parts of our society to deter certain crimes such as murder in the first degree, murder of a cop, and other odious crimes that are set to legislative law. Capital punishment has not been used on crimes of misdemeanors nor will society allow it to expand to such crimes. It would be unjustified to sentence a person to capital punishment for petty crimes just as it would be unjustified to legally allow an individual the rights of euthanasia for uncomplicated ailments such as a slight case of depression or an amputation of a limb. As long as the decision of euthanasia lies solely on the discretion of the recipient with legislative guidance from the state, the moral values of the state will not deteriorate.
Society will become a more justly state if we allow its citizens to use free will in determining their end. We cannot have the convictions of a few determining the ethics of society nor can we have the natural principles of our will oppressed if it falls within the germane laws of the land without causing detriment to other individuals directly. Therefore, society would be incisive and just in implementing euthanasia as a legal practice for its citizens and have the good will of man decide on the permissibility of his moral actions.