Since none of the arguments against prohibiting voluntary euthanasia is compelling, the strong case for the legalization of these practices are great. If all the objections can be answered, the pro-legalization case will be left in sole possession of the field, and legal system should act accordingly. On the other hand, if any of the objections are good, that case will be cancelled and the judicial system should keep the legal door to the practices in question shut. Nevertheless, none of the objections are valid. There are five arguments designed to provide a case for voluntary euthanasia.
Freedom is good.
Restraint of freedom is tyranny. This forms the basis of the common view that individuals can do as they want unless there are weighty reasons that dictate otherwise. Restrictions on liberty are certainly sometimes justifiable, but the onus of justification always lies on their defenders. Patients sometimes are in medical conditions for which there is no relief, and awaiting them is a future filled with suffering, or the indignity of the disintegration of their bodily and mental functions, or both. They often want to avoid these evils, and shield loved ones from their sight.