Euthanasia, like many other death related topics, is a popular debate subject. With a pro-euthanasian bias in mind, the thesis statement which I should like to put forth, with appropriate argument and evidence, is that euthanasia is a freedom that every person should be granted, and that there exists substantial averment to back up this statement. .
For example, according to James Rachels, the most common argument in support of euthanasia is one that we may call "the argument from mercy". It is an exceptionally simple argument, at least in its main idea, which makes one uncomplicated point. Terminally ill patients sometimes suffer pain so horrible that it can hardly be comprehended by those who have not actually experienced it. Their suffering can be so terrible that we do not like even to read about it or think about it; we recoil even from its description. The argument from mercy says: euthanasia is justified because it puts an end to that. (Rachels, p. 457) Rachels continues with his discourse on the morality of euthanasia wherein he identifies other individuals who have suffered interminably, from all appearances for no reason at all. The argument he presents is a philosophical one and has its basis in utilitarianism, which is accepted by some philosophers, and rejected by others. Basically, the problem I have with the utilitarian argument has largely to do with to take one's life, even though he is wallowing in unmitigated misery and pain would be wrong because it would be murder. This concept, I do not subscribe to. Euthanasia is also supported by many religious groups. It has been said that if dying is as natural a human process as being born and living, than our attitudes and laws should reflect this fact. At this point they have a great deal to say about the "right to life," but only recently has attention been focused on the "right to die." Currently, the two main issues surrounding the "right to die" involve "passive" and "active" euthanasia.