Euthanasia

I will argue that consensual euthanasia is not immoral and should not be illegal. Euthanasia doesn't create any extra deaths, all life ends in death, euthanasia just determines the time and manner of an inevitable death. While life as a whole may be good not every moment of life is good. If a patient and their doctor understand that a condition will make the remainder of the patient's life undesirable to live then euthanasia can serve as a purpose of preventing suffering that would diminish the overall quality of the person's life. By eliminating a period of suffering at the end of a life it can cause the life as a whole to be more valuable than if the last suffering stage were to be lived, much like cutting off a small portion of mold from a wheel of cheese can improve the value of the cheese. If a person makes an informed decision to die peacefully the State shouldn't have any business compelling them to suffer the remainder of life. There is also an economic benefit of euthanasia. There is a limited supply of resources and money in the world, every use of finite resources must be compared to other uses. Euthanasia can come at a smaller cost than living and can free up resources to put to other uses. The end of life can be very costly and if a patient decides to end their life in order to pass more money to their surviving family or save their family from some expenses no one ought to have a right to force them to live. Euthanasia can save the money of the patient, their family, and society as a whole. It is cruel to force a person to suffer. Some conditions will cause certain suffering that may only be alleviated with death. Preventing a person's only escape from suffering is dooming a person to a fate that they may wish to avoid. By prohibiting euthanasia the State would be condemning some of the population to terrible suffering. A prohibition on euthanasia is cruel. Euthanasia is consistent with liberty, freedom, autonomy, and choice. A prohibition on euthanasia restricts a person's choices by removing an option. People ought to be free to do anything except force harm to come to someone else. Informed and consensual euthanasia does not force anyone to be hurt thus shouldn't be illegal. Conversely a prohibition on euthanasia is forcing a person to live, if that life is painful then the prohibition is forcing harm. People should have the choice to live and die how they wish, as long as they are leaving other people free to do the same. Some people will opt for euthanasia whether it is legal or not. Having a legal option makes it so a person can easily seek out a professional to end their lives in the most humane and dignified way possible. It'd also prevent some very difficult situations for families or doctors that are petitioned by a suffering member to help them end their life; it'd put people at risk of criminal punishment if they compassionately obeyed the persons request to help them die peacefully. Some family members could feel guilt after the fact if they personally administered death to a loved one at their request, but if euthanasia was legal then a doctor could administer the death potentially saving the family member from feelings of guilt. If family still felt guilty they could seek counseling after the fact, but were euthanasia illegal they might not get counseling out of fear of admitting a crime or the stigma attached to their act.