The practise of euthanasia is not new. There was general support for voluntary euthanasiathroughout Roman antiquity in lieu of prolonged suffering. This paper will use a normativeframework with an argumentative structure to argue for the legalisation of euthanasia andphysician-assisted suicide to support terminally ill persons' autonomy rights concerning selfdeterminationand well-being. Further, the paper will argue in favour of the Netherlands model ofeuthanasia and physician-assisted suicide as being superior to the Belgium model. The aim is toillustrate why the refusal to legalise euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide for terminally illpersons violates the person's rights.The paper also aims to contribute to the debate on this complex and relevant topic. The line ofreasoning will incorporate discourse and critiques concerning why euthanasia should not belegalised and assert that they seem to be founded on invalid argumentation. Moreover, thearguments presented will encompass the utilitarian theory of the right action being theconsequences with the most significant outcome. Finally, the thesis affirms that denying aterminally ill person access to euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide when making end of lifedecisions violates and restricts their human right to autonomy concerning self-determination andwell-being. Thus, euthanasia and physician-assisted should be legalised, and if legalised, theNetherlands model is superior to the Belgium model.
| Identifer | oai:union.ndltd.org:UPSALLA1/oai:DiVA.org:mau-51883 |
| Date | January 2022 |
| Creators | Awuor, Diana Blench |
| Publisher | Malmö universitet, Institutionen för globala politiska studier (GPS) |
| Source Sets | DiVA Archive at Upsalla University |
| Language | English |
| Detected Language | English |
| Type | Student thesis, info:eu-repo/semantics/bachelorThesis, text |
| Format | application/pdf |
| Rights | info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess |
Page generated in 0.0015 seconds