The Moral Permissibility of Legalizing Active Euthanasia To date, in the united States of America, active euthanasia has been seen as unacceptable in legal terms. However, the issue is not so clear in moral terms among thepublic, and especially among the medical community. In fact, nearly half of the doctorsin the United States say that they would prescribe active euthanasia under certaincircumstances. The law that prohibits active euthanasia restricts many people from doingwhat they feel morally justified to do. The moral aspects of killing a person would be theprimary point in the argument that society would be harmed by the legalization ofvoluntary active euthanasia. Therefore, it is most important to morally justify thepractice of active euthanasia in order for an argument to be formed in favor of thelegalization of active euthanasia. I will first prove that passive and active euthanasiahave the same moral permissibility and therefore should have the same legality. I willalso discuss the two main arguments for the moral justification of active euthanasia aswell as refute four arguments against the legalization of active euthanasia. I believesome of the arguments against active euthanasia can be dismissed, and some of thearguments can be overridden by the importance of an individuals self-determination andwell-being.Before arguing my first point, it is necessary to understand the difference betweenkilling and letting die. Some argue that letting die, which is the action considered to takeplace in passive euthanasia, is morally permissible and killing, which is the actionconsidered to take place in active euthanasia, is not morally permissible. I consider theseboth to be actions without any moral difference. James Rachels puts the distinctionbetween killing and letting die in a very understandable way when he said, One may leta patient die by way of not giving him medication, just as one may insult someone byway of not sh...
