ology working to extend lifeunnaturally, society has shifted the control over the time of death into human hands, butnot the hands of the patient. I believe it is morally impermissible to deprive a person oftheir dignity by allowing another person, a physician, to decide what is best for thepatients well-being. Therefore, I believe it is morally permissible to place the controlover the time of a patients death into his or her own hands, thus allowing the patient tohave control over his or her well-being and dignity. Despite the fact active euthanasia seems to be morally permissible, many wouldagree that there are numerous concerns to the legalization of active euthanasia. First,opponents to active euthanasia argue that active euthanasia is morally impermissiblebecause active euthanasia involves two people and, therefore, for a patient to ask aphysician to kill him or her is morally impermissible. However, I believe that itis morally permissible for a patient to request active euthanasia as long as the physician isa proponent of active euthanasia and, more importantly, believes the patient is in whatthe physician views as the correct mental and physical states to make such a decision. Although, I realize that each physician varies as to what he or she believes are the correctmental and physical states for allowing active euthanasia, I believe that is not a validenough reason to destroy a persons autonomy and prohibit active euthanasia. Legalizingactive euthanasia would not give physicians the right to decide on a persons life, but itwould simply allow the physician to act as a safeguard between the person and his owndeath, much like in cases of physician assisted suicide. A second objection is that active euthanasia would forever alter the fundamentalsof the medical profession by weakening the commitment to provide care for the dying. This at first seems like a valid argument because it would be a detriment to society iftrust d...
