Euthanasia: People Should Have the Right to Choose

There are many sides to the dilemma of whether or not euthanasia should
be carried out. There is the question of morality, the question of active
versus passive euthanasia and the question of when euthanasia should be put into
use. None of these questions are totally cut and dry. There seem to be more
gray areas within this issue than there are black and white. Yet when you look
at the problem on a personal level with the actual individuals involved, some of
those gray areas almost disappear. People are put on this earth to live. When
it gets to the point where the quality of a person\'s life gets so bad that they
can no longer function in the world, there is no reason to force that person to
stay alive. Euthanasia is therefore a necessary evil for those whose practical
life is in effect over due to a terminal illness or otherwise life devastating
If a person is in unbearable pain and close to death or is in a
vegetable state and no longer able to function, their life is by all practical
means over. There is no reason to keep them alive. The only way to end their
physical life is by euthanasia. The question is whether to do this by way of
active euthanasia or passive euthanasia. Many are against active euthanasia
because in this case you actually kill the person rather than letting them die.
But both methods are used for the same end which is to end someone\'s life
without further pain for the patient as well as for the family. The only choice
to make after this fact is established is which of these means better carries
out the end. James Rachels, a philosophy professor, says that, "if one simply
withholds treatment [in the way of passive euthanasia], it may take the patient
longer to die, and so he may suffer more than he would if more direct action
were taken and a lethal injection given." (Rachels, p.111) This defeats the
purpose of euthanasia which is to end suffering. Therefore, in cases where
euthanasia is going to be carried out, active euthanasia is the better choice.
The problem with euthanasia then lies in defining the conditions under
which it would be carried out. Cases where depression or painful, though not
terminal, diseases are involved should not have the option of euthanasia. These
people can recover from their illnesses and go on to lead very fulfilling lives.
Clear cut cases would be those in which the patient has a terminal illness that
causes them incredible pain as they get closer to death. Euthanasia would end
the needless suffering and quicken the already inevitable death. There are also
the cases involving people in a vegetative state. Sometimes their bodies can
function on their own and live with the help of intravenous nourishment. Other
times they need countless machines to regulate their breathing as well as their
heart. In all of these cases the individual has lost the brain capacity to be
conscious and to think. Without our thoughts we would not truly be alive.
People in this condition can only cause pain to their loved ones. There is no
legitimate reason not to end their lives when their quality of life has already
deteriorated to almost nothing.
Cases in which a living will is concerned are legitimate since the
person involved has the right to dictate what happens to their bodies but they
are less clear cut. Take, for example, the case of a person who has specified
in their will not to take any extraordinary means by way of medicine in order to
save their life if a medical emergency were to come up. This person then has a
heart attack and dies because the doctors are not allowed to do anything to save
them. A heart attack is by no means a terminal illness. Many people who have
them survive with the help of today\'s medical technology. Yet this person is
allowed to die because that is what they asked for. This is a form of passive
voluntary euthanasia. It is acceptable simply because it is voluntary and
legally bound to a living will.
Everyone has a different view on the acceptability of euthanasia. What
might seem legitimate to one person may be outrageous to another. Religion
plays a big part in this controversy and along with it, morals. Because
everyone has differing religions and morals, it would be near impossible to make