SummaryIn the following essay, I argue that euthanasia is not morally acceptable because it always involves murder and undermines the intrinsic value of the human being . The moral basis on which euthanasia argues its position is contradictory and arbitrary in that its moral values ​​represented in terms such as "euthanasia", "dying with dignity", "a good death" and "the right to self-determination” fail to justify the consideration of euthanasia. his life.IntroductionAmong other moral issues, euthanasia appeared with advances in modern medicine, which allow us to better control not only our lives but also death. Euthanasia is a particularly sensitive issue because it involves the death and murder of a person. In this article, I argue that euthanasia is wrong by responding to claims implied in other terms that euthanasia is expressed in exchangeable ways and understood as a whole; “mercy killing”, “dying with dignity”, “good death” and “physician-assisted suicide”. Mercy killing The term “mercy killing” seems very contradictory. Mercy, by definition, is a kind or forgiving attitude toward someone whom you have the power to harm or the right to punish. As a trait exhibited by generous people, mercy is considered a virtue that we should pursue. On the other hand, killing, taking the life of others or oneself, is considered almost always wrong and is universally condemned in most cases. In “mercy killing,” one exercises the quality of mercy by killing another person. In other words, killing is an expected consequence of obtaining a good cause for mercy. Additionally, it is usually a doctor who is able to extend mercy to a patient by treating the illness or injury. Judging from the analysis of the term, "mercy killing" assumes... middle of article... completely wrong. Conclusion “Mercy”, “dignity”, “good” and “self-determination” are the moral basis that supporters of euthanasia defend. As attractive as they seem, their stories are only an attempt to escape the process of death, through which we still hold on to our existence. The pro-euthanasia argument might suggest that we are capable of controlling our life and death without moral conflict because such euthanasia-related values ​​can justify the action of killing. In contrast, I argue that euthanasia is fundamentally wrong because it involves murder. This arbitrarily takes life and denies the natural process of death. Therefore, euthanasia violates the belief that human beings have intrinsic value until death. Concretely, we have no rights over our death, like over birth itself. Our right of choice only exists between birth and death.