"Passive euthanasia," which is functionally equivalent to "active euthanasia," is already allowed in most jurisdictions and has not led to the devaluation of life.

Question

Answer

Con: Actively killing someone, versus allowing nature to take its course, are morally different acts.

Answer

Pro: It is already widely accepted for doctors to withdraw treatments in certain circumstances, thereby killing the patient. This has not devalued life, so neither should active euthanasia, which also kills a patient.

Should euthanasia be legalized?

"Passive euthanasia," which is functionally equivalent to "active euthanasia," is already allowed in most jurisdictions and has not led to the devaluation of life.

Pros

Cons

It is already widely accepted for doctors to withdraw treatments in certain circumstances, thereby killing the patient. This has not devalued life, so neither should active euthanasia, which also kills a patient.

Actively killing someone, versus allowing nature to take its course, are morally different acts.

Selected claim, opposing its parent

"Passive euthanasia," which is functionally equivalent to "active euthanasia," is already allowed in most jurisdictions and has not led to the devaluation of life.

Pro claim 1

It is already widely accepted for doctors to withdraw treatments in certain circumstances, thereby killing the patient. This has not devalued life, so neither should active euthanasia, which also kills a patient.

Con claim 1

Actively killing someone, versus allowing nature to take its course, are morally different acts.