Euthanasia

According to Webster’s dictionary, euthanasia is “intentional killing by act or omission of a dependent human being for his or her alleged benefit”. Clearly, everybody hopes that his or her death is gentle and easy, and bypasses pain and suffering and loss of dignity. However, the question of whether people can legally passively or actively end their own lives raise many issues. Some argue that by allowing euthanasia will permit people to look down on human life, as if it is not important and can be used for certain criminal circumstances. On the other hand, others argue that permitting people to take their own lives actually maintains human dignity, since people should not have to die painful deaths. I believe that human dignity and the value of human life can best be protected and preserved by permitting people to chose to stop treatments which prolong their lives, but without legalizing the active taking of lives. The philosopher Dyck is representative of the the position that euthanasia should never be legal, because it does not entail compassion for one, or one owns human dignity. Dyck proposes an alternative moral argument to euthanasia, the idea of “benemortasia.” Benemortasia is the belief that a “good” death doesn’t need to be painless or be fully controlled by the person.. Not only does Dyck argue that our definition of good death should change, but he has multiple arguments for why euthanasia is morally wrong. First off, one who causes someone else’s death completely does violence to that person and those around them. The second is, it ends to means for one to clarify misunderstandings or bestow last kindness. The third states that suicide may cause years of suffering to others, and the final, it implies that others may commit suicide if they feel their lives are meaningless. The other side of the argument is represented by