Legalization of voluntary active euthanasia and assisted suicide is a highly controversial topic that involves the consideration of morals and ethics as well as possibility of both negative and positive side effects of the procedure. The main argument for those that support legalization of active euthanasia mainly relates to self-determination in which he or she makes decisions based on what they think is best for themselves. They often relate back to attempting to eliminate the distinction between "allowing to die" and causing death by active euthanasia. Relating to the article by Dan W. Brock, I will argue that that the reasons given by him are problematic because of the fact there is a distinction between allowing to die and active euthanasia, is morally wrong, and can have several side effects of legalization of active euthanasia. Brock begins his point by giving the two central arguments that are for voluntary active euthanasia - the first one being self-determination in which he stresses is an important idea behind human dignity. He states that the rationale of allowing the right to refuse life-sustaining treatment also stands true for support of active euthanasia and reason the self-determination should also extend to controlling "the manner, circumstances, and timing of their dying and death" (Brock 166). The second reason he gives for voluntary active euthanasia is individual well-being and reasons that when a person considers living any longer as harm instead of benefit, that death through euthanasia corresponds to the well-being of the patient who makes that distinction for themselves. He continues by saying that many people, even the ones that are against active euthanasia agree that in certain circumstances, active euthanasia holds true with self-determination. But the two arguments against active euthanasia relates to the relative moral standing of perhaps the healthcare provider as well as the negative side effects that result by legalizing it. He tackles the first argument regarding the morality with euthanasia. He tries to close the gap between "allowing to die" and "killing" by questioning whether a health care professional is killing by stopping life-sustaining treatment. He gives an example of a son sneaking into a room with their mother on life support and extubating her in order to inherit money from her. He ultimately did the same act as health care professional but the only mere difference was the motive behind it. One was to respect the patient's decision and the other did not. Regardless, since they both had the intent to cause the death and succeeds in doing so, both would be considered killing. He states that this consideration is resisted due to two reasons. First one is because in medicine, killing is understood as "unjustified causing of death" and since pulling someone off life support in respect to the patient is "justified causing of death", it is not killing. The other reason that he mentions is because considering pulling off life support as "killing" would be psychologically uncomfortable for the health care professional. It takes the responsibility from the physician causing the death to the patient who makes the choice to come off life-support. But again he argues that there is no distinction between them since "one kills when one performs an action that causes the death of a person, and one allows the death of another, knows this, and omits doing so with the result that the person dies" (Brock 168). He goes on to give different cases to relate to the indifferent morality between allowing someone to die by taking them off life support and actively killing them through euthanasia. He considers two people on a boat and in one case, one person pushes the other overboard and another case where the person falls on their own but the other person does not throw the available life-raft. He mentions two more similar cases where in case one, the person in an emergency room receives intubation to survive but his family member at the scene does not let him and allows him to die. The other case is when the same thing happens except the family members come in after the patient has been intubated and takes him off it, which kills him. Brock argues that the patient in case one is allowed to die and the patient in case two is killed yet there is not a significant difference morally in between them. He moves on to say that even if killing was worse than allowing someone to die, euthanasia would still stand morally right. This is would be the case because he says "wrongful" killing is when you deny the victim that they truly want - that being "continued life or a future" (Brock 169). When a competent patient makes a decision and instead considers continued life or a future a harm instead of benefit, this would actually be considered depriving them of what they truly want. Finally, Brock addresses second argument against euthanasia - the controversy regarding the bad consequences versus the good ones of legalizing euthanasia. Many of the rationale Brock gives to contradict the negative consequences often relate back to the refusal of life-sustaining treatment and how if one is allowed the other should also be allowed. One important negative consequence he attempts to address is the slippery slope reasoning in which one action inevitably allows the groundwork for further "less desirable actions" (Fischer 139). These things include, abuse, misuse of active euthanasia, which may lead to involuntary, non-voluntary euthanasia or even both. He reasons that although it cannot be completely eliminated, that it can be reduced by placing a strict safeguard mechanism such as by knowing all relevant information, stability of patient, exploration of all other alternatives, and performing psychiatric evaluation.

To begin, similar to Brock's idea, I do believe that self determination should be an important thing to respect since the patient do have their right to make decisions based upon what they think is best for themselves in accordance to autonomy. However when it comes to the decision of ending their own lives, self-determination should not extend to active euthanasia because it involves a third party such as the health care professional to help them do so. In regards to the distinction between "allowing to die" through refusal of life-sustaining treatment and "killing" by active euthanasia, there is a very significant distinction that should be made. For example, Brock gave a scenario of two people on a boat where one pushes the other and drowns where in another case one falls off and the other do not throw the available life raft. He considers both similar morally. Although the first case where one pushes the other off is considered as "killing", the second case does not relate to taking someone off of life-sustaining treatment since the victim is not given a choice and drowns regardless. The scenario should however involve the person on the boat throwing the person overboard a life-raft but they refuse to take it. This choice to take the life raft or not can only be made by the victim or the patient and does not involve anyone if the choice results in death. Therefore, refusal to go off life-support of a fully competent person is deemed just and should not be considered as killing them but only allowing them to die. Furthermore, he gives the scenario of the man pushing the other man off the boat and relates this with active euthanasia. This is also not the case because the physician does not cause the life threatening disease. The first scenario should instead be a man who fell off the boat through no cause of the other person who is holding a gun with no life raft. If the man is drowning, does that give the man with the gun on board the right to shoot the overboard man just because he is asking for it? In one case in the clinical casebook, doctors and nurses feel like they would be doing something that is contrary to their jobs if they intentionally harmed the patient even if they ask for it. They say that although "he has the right to refuse treatment, he has no right to request that they murder him" (Horn 117). There is clearly a difference between letting someone die and killing them thus, active euthanasia is morally wrong, which brings me to my next point. Brock mentions that the legal prohibition against homicide "in general does not allow the consent of the victim to justify or excuse the act" (Brock 173). By definition, killing someone through active euthanasia is homicide since the physician kills them regardless of whether the patient asks for it. Establishing the fact that there is a clear distinction between letting someone die and killing them, euthanasia should be considered as homicide while allowing someone to die should not. Furthermore, Brock also mentions that euthanasia is not morally wrong because his definition of "wrongful killing" is taking something that is truly valuable to them - which for most people is continuing to live. He reasons that when a person who is terminally ill no longer has these values but in opposite considers their true value to be - discontinuation to live, we should not take that away from them. However, I find this to be flawed. Consider of one scenario where a patient who is dying of cancer asks for euthanasia and is killed. What if the same patient who somehow did not undergo through it last minute because they changed their minds and miraculously regained their health. The physician would have almost committed wrongful killing essentially becoming a murderer. It would be morally wrong for the health care professional to commit euthanasia. Since people's values change over time and euthanasia is something that cannot be reversed, it should not be considered rightful killing when a third person is involved in the procedure. Not only is euthanasia morally wrong, the negative consequences can be severe. Some of the negative consequences of legalizing euthanasia such as abuse, misuse and possibility of non-voluntary or even involuntary euthanasia through the slippery slope reasoning. First, Brock explains that having safeguard procedures to protect the patients from abuse can be a way to "reduce, though not to eliminate, the potential for abuse of a policy permitting voluntary active euthanasia" (Brock 174). Since there is even a small chance of a person being wrongfully killed or being murdered from abuse of this procedure, euthanasia should not be permissible. If by prohibiting euthanasia, the people who are dying because through natural causes makes absolutely sure that no wrongful killing results, it should be well worth prohibiting euthanasia. At the cost of the terminally ill who are destined to die suffering through psychological pain (since physical pain can be controlled through drugs), we would be saving the lives of the ones wrongfully killed if we were to legalize euthanasia. Finally, if a person is chronically ill, mentally-challenged, and is not competent, the right to ask for euthanasia will soon be given to the surrogates, which further increases the likelihood for abuse and misuse. If the mentally-challenged ill who is not competent does not want to receive the procedure but the surrogate allows it, this would be involuntary and non-voluntary euthanasia. Similar results can occur with mentally demented older people. This a cause for concern regarding the slippery slope analogy since it may allow more and more kinds of euthanasia to be legalized leading to large number of unwarranted deaths. Some of the other negative consequences such as weakening of society's commitment to provide optimal health care and weakening of the legal prohibition code is also backed up by Brock by saying that refusal of life sustaining treatment is similar and that both should be allowed. However since the distinction of allowing someone to die and killing someone is clearly established, his points that attempt to address the negative consequences become invalid as well. In conclusion, voluntary active euthanasia should not be legalized because it is morally wrong and have overwhelming negative consequences.