Euthanasia has been an emotive and controversial issue in the recent times. The main idea behind the practice is to give terminally ill patients a painless and dignified death through active or passive euthanasia (Emanuel, Onwuteaka-Philipsen, Urwin & Cohen, 2016) . Even though the morality of euthanasia is still debated across numerous sections of the society, proponents of euthanasia feel that the act should is morally acceptable if there is voluntariness. The moral case for voluntary euthanasia is that individuals make crucial decisions about their lives based on their conception of how they want to live (Emanuel, Onwuteaka-Philipsen, Urwin & Cohen, 2016) . Therefore, if people are allowed exercise self-determination, they take responsibility for their lives, and since dying is an important part of human life, then individuals should be allowed to choose the timing and nature of their death (Emanuel, 2017) . Despite the compelling argument on the morality of voluntary euthanasia, the act is morally and legally unjustifiable in cases where the request of a dying person are enduring, rational or genuinely voluntary (Emanuel, 2017) .
The right to self-determination should not be used as a tool for compelling medical professionals to perform euthanasia. The Hippocratic Oath requires physicians to always act in the best interest of the patient (Nunes & Rego, 2016) . Therefore, there are instances where the patient might opt for euthanasia to escape physical pain and suffering without considering the consequences of such an action objectively. In addition, a physician might have moral reservations about the act (Nunes & Rego, 2016) . In this context voluntariness should include the consent of both the medical professional and the patient.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
Even though voluntary euthanasia has the potential to alleviate the physical suffering of terminally ill patients and the economic strain that comes with palliative care, it can only be morally and legally acceptable if the it is done voluntarily by both the physician and the patient (Nunes & Rego, 2016) . Therefore, even though the patient is allowed the right to make decisions autonomously, medical professionals have the discretion to ensure that the decision is sound and genuinely voluntary and that it does not contradict their moral and ethical principles.
References
Emanuel, E. (2017). Euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide: focus on the data. The Medical Journal Of Australia , 206 (8), 339-340. doi: 10.5694/mja16.00132
Emanuel, E., Onwuteaka-Philipsen, B., Urwin, J., & Cohen, J. (2016). Attitudes and Practices of Euthanasia and Physician-Assisted Suicide in the United States, Canada, and Europe. JAMA , 316 (1), 79. doi: 10.1001/jama.2016.8499
Nunes, R., & Rego, G. (2016). Euthanasia: A Challenge to Medical Ethics. Journal Of Clinical Research & Bioethics , 7 (4). doi: 10.4172/2155-9627.1000282
