Euthanasia, i.e. mercy killing is both historical and contemporary problem of medicine, law, ethics and religion, which is reflected in the multitude of interwoven concepts and different legislative solutions of that question all over the world. The debate over legalizing euthanasia is like earthquake, sharply divides the scientific and unscientific public on its supporters and opponents, and although through literature pervades the opinion that this topic has been exhausted. In the maelstrom of issues that this topic opens, legislators all around the world try to find a practical solution, in order to resolve adequately the question of euthanasia. The line that separates admissible from impermissible merciful deprivation of life through the centuries has consistently been moved: in the direction of legalization of euthanasia and towards the complete ban of euthanasia. Globally, there are three main ways of regulation of mercy killing. One group of countries equates it with ordinary murder, while the second group represents the view that the euthanasia is privileged murder. Finally, in the third group euthanasia is decriminalized upon fulfillment of prescribed conditions. In Islamic countries, euthanasia is prohibited, both in the East and in the Bosnia and Herzegovina. It is seen as non-Islamic and it is equalized to the murder. Accordingly, in the countries where euthanasia is legally punishable, sentences vary from very lenient to the death penalty, as was the case in the Islamic countries.
Since the debate over the legalization of active euthanasia does not subside for many years, its supporters and opponents have created strong organizations that represent their beliefs about the (im) morality and (in) feasibility of the same. The focus of the problem lies in the question what extent is necessary to respect the life of terminally ill patients, and accordingly provide strong arguments. In other words, the question is whether in addition to the right on life, as a fundamental human right guaranteed by the European Convention of Human Rights and Liberties, there is a right to die, established through the right to self-determination. Thus, opponents of legalization of active euthanasia, as primary argument, emphasize the holiness of life at all costs (which is supported primarily with arguments in Islamic and Christian religion, which prohibit any form of suicide), while its supporters believe that the moral obligation of doctors is to end the life of terminally ill patient who is suffering, but they also highlight the strong individual autonomy in the matters of life and death. In short, both supporters and opponents summarize most of their arguments on the concept of respect for the patient, where they allocate four forms: a concern for the welfare for the patient, respect his wishes, respect for fundamental values of life and respects for the interests of the patient. Therefore, inter alia, any discussion of euthanasia leads to objections based on religious grounds. Secular arguments are rejected, because they "do not consider the crucial importance of having God as the creator of entire universe and human beings". This religious opposition to euthanasia is based on the claim that only someone who is not religious can consider euthanasia as one of the options in the life, but it cannot be for the people who have a religious orientation. In accordance with beliefs that prevail in some countries, their legislators resolve the issue of euthanasia in accordance with those beliefs, and some solutions will be discussed below. Among the reasons that explain the different treatment of euthanasia between countries, according to some authors, doctors often have a limited experience in this field, because they are not faced with such health condition of the patients. This statement is correct. For example, physicians in Bosnia and Herzegovina do not have any experience with euthanasia.