ons of a person that determines themoral permissibility and not the actions of a person. Moreover, because passive andactive euthanasia have the same moral permissibility and intention, which is the eventualdeath of a person, then active euthanasia should have the same legality as passiveeuthanasia.Having said that, I believe the most important reason for the moral permissibilityof active euthanasia is the freedom of self-determination, better known as autonomy. Autonomy suggests that competent and free-thinking adults have the right to makeimportant decisions about their lives. I believe that the moral and personal benefits topreserving autonomy in society outweigh any moral or legal arguments prohibitingautonomy, such as prohibiting active euthanasia. I believe this because being able toexercise autonomy is a value that is woven into nearly every aspect of life and to destroya persons autonomy could greatly undermine a persons life. Therefore, people shouldbe able to exercise autonomous decisions over most aspects of their life, including death. To deny someone the right to make an autonomous decision about their death,contradicts the basic American ideal of self-determination. Author Dan Brock sums upnicely the reason why death should be an autonomous when he wrote, Ifself-determination [autonomy] is a fundamental value, then...it is especially importantthat individuals control the manner, circumstances, and timing of their dying and death.(p.114). That is why I believe autonomy is essential in arguing the moral permissibilityof active euthanasia. The second reason for the moral permissibility of active euthanasia is that activeeuthanasia would relieve suffering and increase an individuals well-being overall. Aquick and relatively painless death bypasses the physical and mental agony of a long,painful, and undignified death that has become common in todays society, even withadvancements in medical technology. With new techn...
