The talk of assisted dying has been a controversial subject matter for ages. Since like forever, different scholars from various disciplines have debated this subject; religiously, morally, legally.
Why did I decide to speak on this today? An artist that I didn’t know until only after her death, ended her life at 95 this way. She goes by the name “Jackie Ferrara.” Though she wasn’t ill, she was healthy, she was granted clinical suicide, or perhaps should I say murder?
Judging by how a lot of persons are okay with it; is a glimpse into how easily morality goes out the window, when evil is done legally.
For a better understanding on this matter; what is Euthanasia?
Euthanasia is the act of intentionally ending a person’s life to relieve them from severe pain or suffering; usually in cases of terminal illness or irreversible conditions.
The word comes from the Greek “eu” (meaning “good”) and “thanatos” (meaning “death”), so it literally means “good death.”
There are different types of euthanasia:
Voluntary euthanasia: when the person chooses and consents to it.
Involuntary euthanasia: when it’s done without the person’s consent.
Active euthanasia: when someone directly takes action to cause death, like giving a lethal injection.
Passive euthanasia: when life-sustaining treatment is withheld or withdrawn, allowing the person to die naturally.
My take on this goes as follows:
Judging from the etymology, “good death,” is there anything good about dying when the death is not natural? Is suicide and murder immoral because they are morally wrong? Or are they immoral because it is not legal?
At what point should euthanasia be considered legal, or morally correct? Should legality be based on morality, or perhaps it should be the other way around? Should people, or perhaps institutions be given the right to play God, and decide when a person’s life should be ended?
So many questions: I mean, at what point does a life fall under the qualification to be taken? Because in the case of Jackie Ferrara, she was healthy. Or perhaps, old age is now considered an illness worthy of being granted euthanasia, rather than letting nature take its course?
You see? A lot of individuals do not understand how much effects this would have in our society, should we accept it. Rebrand murder, and suicide, call it a medical name like euthanasia; and that makes it okay?
Should we accept this, where does it end? At what point do we draw the line? How much further can we go before we say this is wrong? The truth is, in matters like this, there will always be some set of individuals who will take a step further.
This matter is psychological; when legality is not backed by morality, it creates a society of mentally distorted individuals without a moral compass, other than what is legal. How long will it take before we begin to sign things into law, simply to satisfy our darkest impulses?
Euthanasia should not be legal anywhere in the world. It is morally wrong on so many levels. No one should be allowed to play God on matters like this. It is very essential that professionals; especially, medical practitioners follow ethical and moral standards in carrying out their duties, otherwise everything is permissible. Suicide should remain suicide, murder should remain murder; don’t make them okay.
©️ Victor E. Ojei, 2025.
VICTOR OJEI 
It’s a powerful call to protect the moral compass of society from legal dilution.
Thanks victor for a thoughtful read!! Hope you are doing well 🌷
LikeLiked by 2 people
Thank you Aparna; I am doing okay.
I don’t get the logic behind assisted dying. If we begin to accept everything simply by consent, how long before we begin to sign our darkest impulses into law?
LikeLiked by 1 person
You’ve highlighted the crucial slippery slope argument: if we accept a choice simply because it’s consented to, what stops us from validating truly destructive or anti-social choices?
LikeLiked by 1 person
Exactly. And you know what’s funny? “The slippery slope” isn’t alien to human history, even to this very day; ranging from slavery, wars etc. it all boils down to the question: should legality be backed by morality, or should everything legal be morally accepted?
We both know which it should be, as well as, which it actually is.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Your point about the “slippery slope” isn’t just a hypothetical fear; it’s the pattern of history where we allowed the blunt instrument to erode the sharp one.
LikeLiked by 1 person
We are actually running in one big circle, with history repeating itself: different events, but the same pattern.
Those who fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it; how quickly chaos arises when people are led by impulses, rather than ethical values.
I analyzed a few related points on this in my journal.
LikeLike
This is a tough one that no one can answer for anyone else. It is a highly personal decision that will be different for everyone. I think it should be legal, but ONLY under certain guidelines. The person(s) choosing that as an option need to have periodic psych evaluations and medical confirmation that there is NO hope and that the conditions are terminal, with no hope of recovery. It needs to be legally stated in an affidavit or will in advance, and made clear to all who might be affected or who might benefit. If someone is terminal and in constant pain or agony, it is a humane choice. After all, we euthanize our beloved pets when they are in those situations to eliminate their pain and suffering, so why would we want our loved ones to suffer endlessly? Again, it is a very personal decision and the answer will be different for everyone. I personally want that option available to me if I am ever in that terminal situation with no hope of recovery.
LikeLiked by 1 person
First of all, pets are not people, though doesn’t mean their lives aren’t valued.
Now, it’s not that I don’t get it, I do; however, the point I am trying to make is, medical practitioners are meant to save lives, and not end them under any circumstances. This raises serious ethical concerns around professionals. You need to understand this isn’t just in medicine. For example:
Should politicians be allowed to eradicate half the world population for a just course? Should humans be used as medical guinea pigs for a just course? Perhaps one might say: well so long they consents to it. Which leads to the question; should legality be backed by morality, or is it the other way around?
Suicide should be left as suicide. Murder should be left as murder. Professionals should focus on their jobs, which is finding a solution, and leave God to His.
LikeLike
I understand and respect your argument, however, I disagree. No, we should NO, allow humans to be used as guinea pigs on a regular basis, BUT if they should choose that for themselves, that should be allowed. NO politicians should NOT be allowed to eradicate half the world’s population. Sometimes, medical professionals have to make tough choices, and sometimes that choice is to end the suffering. Again, this is NOT a one-size-fits all scenario, and it needs to follow strict guidelines. No, pets are nut humans, but that doesn’t mean we don’t love them the same, if not more than humans. I do not have children, not human children at least, so my pets are my “children”. I would do anything I could to save them, and sometimes that means having to say goodbye. It is all about free will and the freedom to make the decisions that are best for us. I don’t expect everyone to agree or to support my beliefs, and that’s OK. We don’t have to. We are all different and we all have to make our own choices and decisions.
LikeLiked by 1 person
You are right; it’s not a one size fits all scenario. However, what/who decides what fits, and what doesn’t? It can’t be logic, because that would be a one size fits all. In this case it’s emotions; and we both know how dangerous such an idea can be. Should we start signing our darkest desires into law simply because we consent to it? Can a person consent to offering all their organs to save another’s life, which is also a death sentence?
A lot could go wrong with this kind of ideas; how long before professionals begin to actively talk individuals into it, deviating from their original assignments?
My point remains: suicide should be left as suicide, and murder should be left as murder; do not institutionalize it. Let those who wish to die, do it on their own.
LikeLiked by 1 person
It’s not that simple or cut and dry. As with many things, it is a very complicated issue.
LikeLiked by 1 person
If you ask me, it’s not really that complicated. If one wishes to die, they should do it on their own; after-all individuals have been committing suicide since ages, so why institutionalize it?
In rear cases like when a brain dead person is aided by life-support; then by all means please pull the plug, because he/she is already dead. Such a person isn’t alive. We are talking about the living, and not the dead. It’s not really that complicated.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I agree with that assertion, however, not everyone has the ways or means to do it by themselves in a dignified manner.
LikeLiked by 1 person
If dignity is what they want, they shouldn’t be committing suicide. Why is suicide/murder a bad thing when one does it, but it’s suddenly okay when an institution does it simply because it is legal? Make it make sense. This still boils down to the question; should legality be backed by morality, or is it the other way around?
LikeLike
Again, there is NO easy answer for this, but often times, when people are to this point when they are terminally ill, with no hope of recovery, dignity is all they have left. Let’s just agree to disagree on this one. We will never convince each other otherwise.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I have already though this one through. I have a signed DNR- no life support or resuscitation. And if I find myself getting too feeble or in too much pain- I will take matters into my own hands. I am all about the quality of life- and have no longevity expectations.
LikeLiked by 2 people
This I understand; take matters into your own hands, do not institutionalize suicide/murder. On the DNR, though, it raises some ethical concerns given the fact that it is legally encouraged, a person has the right to decide what medical procedures they don’t want done to them; unlike euthanasia which actively aides in the killing of a person.
LikeLiked by 1 person