There are many approaches to the concept and practice of euthanasia. In one definition, euthanasia is described as a quick death in which pain is almost absent. 1 However, there is one common understanding of euthanasia in the modern society. Euthanasia is the ending of a person’s life to help the particular individual avoid pain and suffering that would have otherwise been inevitable if he or she had continued living. 2 In many countries, euthanasia is illegal. However, some countries allow euthanasia to be performed on individuals on their own consent or with the approval of a next of kin. This means that when a person’s life becomes so painful that it is not worth living anymore, euthanasia can be performed to alleviate the immense suffering. Euthanasia has been a subject of arguments among religious authorities. It has also been a subject of controversy and study in the complex field of philosophy. 3 While several authorities in philosophy support euthanasia through their theories, most oppose it. Some of the philosophies revolve around the extent to which life may not be worth living, while other theories revolve around the duty of the parties involved in a case of euthanasia. Deontology has been against euthanasia from many perspectives. Many ethicists and authors who have used deontology against euthanasia have relied on the concept of duty. 4 However, it is important to note that deontology in philosophy revolves around one’s duties and the manner in which they are executed. 5 Generally, it is contrary to the duty of the subject of euthanasia and that of those who intend to perform the mercy killing to take one’s life based on their own assessment of the quality of one’s life. Philosophical deontology revolves around principles of duty. One is obligated to perform duties even when odds are against success. There are various forms of philosophical deontology. One of the most popular approaches to deontology is the Kantian philosophy of duty. Kant’s postulations regarding perfect duties can be used to build a solid argument against euthanasia. 6 Other authors such as Brian Kane have indirectly used deontology to present an argument favoring preservation of life. 7 In his analysis of euthanasia, Kane also explores many arguments that people present when advocating for euthanasia. Thus, when deontology is applied to euthanasia, it revolves around the duty to preserve life. 8 However, in other settings, deontology may go against the duty to preserve life. This arises from contradictions such as those presented by Kant’s interpretation of the duty not to lie and the duty not to kill. According to Kant, one must not lie to a potential murderer to alleviate an almost certain act of murder. 9 However, Kant’s deontology argues against actions such as suicide and euthanasia since these practices violate an individual’s duties to oneself. Deontology provides one of the strongest arguments against euthanasia. This theory and its interpretation depend on one’s view of life. However, in the quest to establish an argument against euthanasia, it is necessary to have a positive attitude towards living. From that point, it is possible to establish a solid ar