The arguments from both perspectives are of moral and legal importance. Proponents of euthanasia believe that church and state have no right to interfere with a person’s right to die. Opponents believe the opposite that no one but God has the authority to determine when a person is to die. However, according to my personal life experience, euthanasia should be allowed to be performed to patients with chronic pain associated with incurable illnesses.
In 2008, my cousin was diagnosed with prostate cancer. He was treated in different hospitals with no avail. One day I went to visit him in the last hospital he was admitted. He was languishing in pain. He told me that he was suffering in pain, and that he opted for euthanasia citing that he was suffering in pain while there was no cure of his disease. I convinced him to abandon his mission and encouraged him to take heart. At least I would not have assented with his proposal. I was not prepared to live with the guilt of siding with his idea of terminating his life. One moth later, he insisted on the same, but his parents and relatives were against the idea. However, to some point I felt like siding with him upon seeing how much he had suffered. He later died the following month.
Going by the utilitarian ethical theory, the choice that yields the greatest benefit to the majority is the choice that is ethically correct: the welfare of majority is important than that of an individual (Cavan, 2000). For those that choose euthanasia, although, the patient will have taken his own life contrary the believe of many that life is precious and should be preserved at all cost, he will on the other hand have saved the remaining wealth he has, terminate the illness pain, and above all saved his family and loved ones of the agony of grieve. In this way his family will be left with some wealth that they still need even after his