IndexPersonal arguments on why euthanasia should be legalPossible outcomes of legalizing euthanasiaConclusionWorks CitedVoluntary euthanasia is the deliberate practice of ending an individual's life suffering, freeing him in turn from unnecessary Pain. More and more countries have begun to adopt the legalization of voluntary euthanasia. Euthanasia is too often associated and confused with assisted suicide. In “Why Should Euthanasia Be Legal?” In my essay I will argue that voluntary euthanasia should be legal. Euthanasia should be seen as a merciful means to end the long-term suffering of incurable diseases. All suffering people should be given the opportunity to leave the earth safely and with their dignity intact. The legalization of euthanasia is one of the most controversial debates in the world. In the United States it has acquired a negative connotation due to inadequate media coverage and therefore an incorrect understanding of what it is. In the remainder of this article I will provide reasons why the United States should adopt euthanasia and also provide examples of reasons why it may have the potential to not be successful in the United States. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on "Why Violent Video Games Shouldn't Be Banned"? Get an original essay Personal arguments for why euthanasia should be legal Voluntary euthanasia would allow patients who have exhausted all other reasonable options to choose a calm and painless end to their suffering. This is a practice that would be offered to terminally ill patients who have a low quality of life remaining and a limited lifespan. Patients should express their wishes, often in writing, that this is something they are willingly interested in doing. It is not a simple process and often requires a lengthy examination of the patient's health and mental state (unless a power of attorney is involved) to determine whether this would be an appropriate course of action. In exercising autonomy, individuals should be able to take responsibility for how they choose to die. Technological advances in modern medicine have allowed many people to extend the duration of their stay here. Sometimes this extended time allows for further final goodbyes. But much of this time is also spent in pain and waiting longingly until the final day when the pain will end. As long as a terminally ill individual is fully competent, using their own judgment about whether or not to continue their low quality of life should weigh much heavier than anything else. Trying to sustain life in a terminally ill body is morally wrong. These terminal, life-threatening illnesses usually involve unbearable pain and misery. Isn't keeping these patients alive one step away from torture? To ensure that an individual who has lost the will to live remains alive wallowing in deep pain until his inevitable death. Human beings have the fundamental right to life. Why shouldn't the opposite be the same? Why shouldn't suffering individuals be given the right to choose the outcome of their lives? Denying this right only prolongs the suffering not only of sick people, but also of their families. Keeping a terminally ill patient alive often represents an immense financial burden. Hospice care, assistive devices, daily medications, and regular hospital visits are just a few of the many financial responsibilities a patient must take care of. Current laws in the United States mean that an individual who, 316(5), 545-546.