Imagine the following situation: you begin to feel unwell and after several weeks without relief, you see a doctor. Tests are done, and when the results come in, your entire life is turned upside down. Suddenly, you are facing terminal cancer. The doctor shakes his head and tells you that you have fewer than six months to live and that all they can do is make you comfortable as you face a very slow, painful, undignified death from the illness.

If you were offered the option to take a simple pill and end your suffering, would you do it?

Active euthanasia is a contentious issue in the United States today. Many opponents of euthanasia liken it to murder, as the actions of the doctor are directly causing the death of the patient. However, supporters of euthanasia argue that it is the disease that kills the patient, not the doctor. Another common argument against active euthanasia is that it violates the free will of the doctor who is being asked to provide the medication.

This is a good point, as some doctors may not be comfortable with this action, but the current laws regarding active euthanasia do not force any doctors to administer/prescribe the medication if they do not choose to do so. Many also argue that doctors who choose to provide the medication are violating the primary tenet of the Hippocratic Oath: first, do no harm.

This is also a point where active euthanasia proponents disagree; they argue that it is actually more harmful to allow someone to suffer and die in pain when such a death could have been prevented. Despite the objections being raised, the supporters of active euthanasia are correct. Active euthanasia should be legalized because it is a decision that harms no one except the terminally ill patient, who has already received a “death sentence.” If legal, it could be offered as a choice to all terminally ill patients when they are being presented with end-of-life options.

Of course, if an individual were to walk up to another individual and inject them with a lethal dose of morphine, that person would rightfully be arrested and tried for murder. A conviction would likely follow and that person would spend many years in prison for their actions. Opponents argue that, because this situation would be illegal, active euthanasia should also be considered a form of murder. Because the Webster dictionary definition of murder is “the crime of deliberately killing a person” and technically active euthanasia fits that definition, it is possible to make the argument that it is murder because the doctor is ending the life of the patient (either directly or indirectly) and their actions are deliberate.

However, proponents of active euthanasia are quick to point out that it is only an option for patients who are already terminally ill with no hope for recovery. The illness is going to cause the patient to die; with many terminal illnesses, the final progression of the disease is characterized by pain beyond the reach of normal pain medications. Very few people would consider such a painful death preferable to active euthanasia, which is pain-free. The case made above, with the morphine injection, is also a fallacious argument that is often employed by opponents of euthanasia.

This form of euthanasia requires the patient to consent to the medication being provided; in states where it is currently legal, the patient actually has to make three separate requests over a period of 15 days before the doctor will even consider the request. It is clear that this is a decision the patient must consider strongly before making their choice. Consent is the difference between a random person walking up and using morphine to murder another and a doctor administering a lethal dose of morphine to help a dying patient pass on their own terms.

Some opponents also make the claim that active euthanasia strips doctors of their free will because legalizing active euthanasia would make it a legitimate medical procedure and all doctors would be required to participate. However, this is also an inaccurate argument against active euthanasia. It ignores the fact that doctors can, and do, refuse to treat a patient for any number of reasons.

For example, it is common for obstetricians to decline pregnant patients who are seeking their first prenatal appointment after the second trimester. This is done to protect the doctor from facing a malpractice lawsuit. Instead, these doctors often refer patients they will not treat to doctors who are willing to provide such treatment.

Likewise, physicians who find the idea of ending a patient’s life too difficult would not be forced to do so. Patients seeking active euthanasia could be referred to other doctors who are willing to help them through the process. This way, the patient would be able to make the choice they felt was right for their situation and the doctor would not be forced to participate in a process that made them uncomfortable.

First, do no harm.

These words are often repeated as the primary principle of the Hippocratic Oath. In truth, this phrase does not appear anywhere in the body of either the original oath or the modern version. In fact, the Hippocratic Oath contains the words:

“I will not give a lethal drug to anyone if I am asked, nor will I advise such a plan.”

Because of this, opponents of active euthanasia argue that doctors who assist in active euthanasia are violating their Hippocratic Oath by doing so. The argument seems to be supported by the fact that taking someone else’s life is harmful to them; this is not a point that can be denied. The refutation of this argument in particular is twofold: first, most modern medical schools no longer require students to take the Hippocratic Oath and second, allowing someone to suffer when the suffering is preventable is more harmful than active euthanasia.

Sadly, the Hippocratic Oath is very outdated. It contains a line that states:

“I will not use the knife.”

...but surgery is a common medical practice to treat many diseases today! Medical schools that do require an oath instead use a modernized version that does not contain any of the outdated lines — in fact, “only 14 percent of modern oaths prohibit euthanasia.” The most commonly used modern oath (a 1964 version attributed to Louis Lasagna) instead says:

“But it may also be within my power to take a life; this awesome responsibility must be faced with great humbleness and awareness of my own frailty.”

Therefore, most doctors who would take part in active euthanasia would either not have taken an oath or not be violating their oaths. This is also true for the “do no harm” argument – the Lasagna oath does not contain the word harm.

Taking the life of another can be considered a harmful act; after all, it is ending with their death. However, as stated before, terminal illnesses are often lengthy and painful. It is not a stretch to say that the suffering is harmful to the person. With some illnesses, such as brain tumors, patients can lose control of their mental faculties and bodily functions as the disease progresses.

If these patients can no longer care for themselves and the pain is steadily increasing, the illness is causing them harm. When this harm is weighed against the harm caused by ending their life, the prolonged harm is clearly more detrimental to the patient. Active euthanasia may be causing harm, but it offers people the chance to end their life on their own terms before their disease causes them severe suffering. They can choose to say goodbye to their families while they are still mentally sound. These benefits make it far less harmful than a “natural” death from their terminal illness.

Washington, Oregon, California and Vermont have already passed laws permitting active euthanasia and other states have pending legislation regarding "end of life" laws. Although there are many opponents to such laws, I honestly believe it should be legalized. If it were legal, patients suffering from a terminal illness would have access to every possible option for palliative care.

Despite objections, active euthanasia is distinctly different from murder due to the informed consent necessary from the patient. Obviously it would not be the right choice for all patients, but for those who would use it, active euthanasia would prevent prolonged harm and suffering related to their illness. It also would not be the right choice for all doctors, and doctors who would not want to take part in such a process would not be required to do so. Those who would help patients end their lives could rest easy knowing that active euthanasia is in line with the principles of modern medicine.