As there are many extracts on this site against euthanasia,(see extracts 1,3,4,5 – the Churches seem to be unanimous here) below are some arguments for voluntary euthanasia. For example, Lord Alton has argued that a slippery slope will develop whereby disabled people will be scared of going to see their doctor. But don’t legal safeguards like the Oregon rules make this impossible?

1. Shared values have emerged in UK culture, and a primary value is autonomy (the free, rational right to choose) derived from Kantian ethics.

2. Happiness and well-being (Gk eudaimonia) are human rights derived form an Aristotelean and Utilitarian tradition. Well-being becomes a real issue with advances in medicine as it implies much more than absence of pain.

3. Human rights theories have developed the right to life. The right to choose death is an extension of this right to life (see Diane Pretty argument to European Court of Human Rights available as a Case Study in this section of the site).

4. Moral dilemmas are created as we near death. Such choices are between two goods, both of which we cannot have, or two unmitigated evils, the lesser of which we must choose. Absolute theories (eg Kant) don’t recognise this (see WD Ross’ criticisms of Kant and his theory of prima facie duties which can be broken where there are moral conflicts).

5. The right to privacy includes the right to take control of our own body and to have free choice, unhampered by law or social pressure as to our future.

6. Voluntary euthanasia implies informed consent, with doctors and family participation, without pressure, and only for adults.  Many of the fears (eg that old people will feel pressurised) are thus unfounded.

7. “Slippery slopes” leading to a general disregard for the sanctity of life can be avoided by adopting legal safeguards such as the Oregon rules (see the section on this site).

8. At present doctors hasten death eg by increasing morphine doses, often with the patient’s permission. They are morally innocent because of the doctrine of double effect, accepted by Catholics, that if the primary intention is to relieve pain and the secondary (evil) effect is to kill, then no blame attaches.

9. The principle of compassion and mercy and love of our neighbour demands that we respond to suffering and distress by assenting to the legalisation of euthanasia.

10. Another moral principle that should be taken into consideration is nonmalfeasance (not harming people). If you keep someone alive against his will who might otherwise die with some dignity, you may be hurting him and are inflicting cruel and unnecessary harm on him. That is immoral.