So regarding Kantian ethics, euthanasia is viewed as morally wrong and should never be done regardless

of the situation (Categorical Imperative ) but that therefore contradicts his own words specifically
respect for persons, as the Brassington school of law put it;” An agent who takes his own life acts in
violation of the moral law, according to Kant; suicide, and, by extension, assisted suicide are therefore
wrong. By a similar argument, and with a few important exceptions, killing is wrong; implicitly, then,
voluntary euthanasia is also wrong. Kant’s conclusions are uncompelling and his argument in these
matters is undermined on considering other areas of his thought. Kant, in forbidding suicide and
euthanasia, is conflating respect for persons and respect for people, and assuming that, in killing a
person (either oneself or another), we are thereby undermining personhood. But an argument along
these lines is faulty according to Kant’s own standards. There is no reason why Kantians have to accept
that self-killing and euthanasia are contrary to the moral law. Even if some Kantians adhere to this
doctrine, others can reject it.” So what then is the problem with voluntary euthanasia? It is the
reasoning behind or intention of why we are doing it.

So how does one ought to measure the intentions of the human mind? The short answer is we can’t as
William Kelly Wright said “It is hard to think of any measure as good and right that arbitrarily condones
in some what it condemns in others or that calmly proposes to exploit individual fellow-citizens, savages,
or subject nations to their own detriment and for the sake of the profit of others. On the other hand, no
proposal could be denounced as bad that would unquestionably increase self-respect, enrich human
personalities, and render men more capable of governing their own lives and becoming more intelligent
citizens.” So we can only the next best thing and find the reason behind why they want to do that and
base our decisions off of that for example, what about dementia patients whose existence is filled with
suffering and the loss of identity? What should our decisions be? well as Michael Colby stated “Kant is
no longer seen as the dogmatic opponent of suicide that he appears to be at first glance. However, some
interpreters have recently argued for a Kantian view of the morality of suicide with surprising, even
radical, implications. More specifically, they have argued that Kantianism firstly requires that those with
dementia or other rationality-eroding conditions end their lives before their condition results in their
loss of identity as moral agents and second requires subjecting the fully demented or those confronting
future dementia to non-voluntary euthanasia. Properly understood, Kant's ethics have neither of these
implications first, wrongly assumes that rational agents’ duty of self-preservation entails a duty of self-
destruction when they become non-rational and second, further neglects Kant's distinction between
duties to self and duties to others and wrongly assumes that duties can be owed to rational agents only
during the time of their existence.”

So considering all of this what should we do with Euthanasia, we think that we should let the people
have the freedom to decide on it since when viewing it from the Kantian perspective it doesn’t go
against most of Kant’s words unlike suicide. If the person is truly suffering, their existence would cause
more harm than good or they are losing themselves due to a disease or tragedy why shouldn’t we give
them the release of death? An argument against this is that killing people in general is plain wrong and
should never be done, well what if they’re suffering and there is nothing we or anyone can do about it?
Should we just let them suffer prolong their pitiful existence until one day their body just gives in
naturally? No! we think that is a cruel thing to put someone through. Well what about people who have
extreme mental diseases who are slowly losing themselves or are so mentally distraught that they are
destructive to people around them and the ones they love should we just let them be? Not knowing the
difference between good and bad, friend or foe? No we think that (if all else fails) euthanasia should be
part of or one of the options that people should begin to consider to relieve them of their burdens.

Rrl

Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy - Kant’s Moral Philosophy 2004

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/kant-moral/?ref=quillette

Brassington school of law - Killing people: what Kant could have said about suicide and euthanasia but
did not 2005
https://jme.bmj.com/content/32/10/571

William Kelley Wright - International Journal of Ethics, Vol. 37, No. 2 1927
pg,150-151

Jennifer A. Bulcock - How Kant would choose to die: A Kantian defense of euthanasia 2006
https://scholars.unh.edu/thesis/33/

Allen W. Wood - Kantian Ethics 2007

https://philpapers.org/rec/WOOKE-4

Michael Cholbi - Kant on euthanasia and the duty to die: clearing the air 2013
https://jme.bmj.com/content/41/8/607