NO BECAUSE

o Just because beds in hospitals are needed by others is no reason to allow a person to die! Some
can be cared for at home, or in special hospices. If we stopped caring for the terminally ill at all
where would we draw the line? Is treating the elderly also a waste of resources because they are
nearing the end of their lives anyway? I think that to describe palliative care as a "huge and
ultimately wasteful drain on medical resources" is rather harsh! Im not sure that families of the
terminally ill would agree with you there
o

The patient may be terminally ill but this statement aside from repeating other points discounts
the possibility of new treatments being developed in time to cure the illness he or she is facing.

There is a straight answer for this: Suffering is part of the human condition and part of life's
experience. Also medication can be improved to help a person's quality of life and make their
deaths as humane as possible. Futhermore even if a person is in a state of sedation they are still
biologically existing and still have what some would say an obligation to live their life until its
natural conclusion.

The right to choose is not something which our legal system has "accepted" we all have. This is
far from the truth. Suicide was decriminalised in the UK solely for the reason that it is not a
punishable offence it is of course impossible to punish a dead person. This is by no means a
reflection of the general opinion of society.

Furthermore the European Court of Human Rights ruled in the case of Diane Pretty that a person
does not has a recognised right to die as stated in this quote: "No right to die, whether at the
hands of a third person or with the assistance of a public authority could be derived." [[ BBC
Online News "British woman denied right to die"http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/1957396.stm

Unfortunately giving any sort of right to chose also denies a right to choose for others. If
Euthanasia is allowed then people who are terminally ill, critically injured or simply old may well
feel compelled to choose and option they dont really want to take. If Euthanasia is allowed in
some cases these people whose treatment may be costing relatives or the state a lot of money
may well feel that they are not worth the cost of keeping them alive. This is not something we
would want anyone to feel as in essence it takes away their freedom of choice on the matter.

i think that it is our fate and nothing happens in theis world just like that for no reason. Everything
in this world happen for a reason that could be beneficial for that person but he or she may not
realise it.
You may say know that how if a person is suffering severly from ilness would that be a good thing
for him or her ?? Bu toyu never know. I mean that i take as murder. We all say and agree that
murder is something really bad and is not allowed so how come killing a person is the right
thing?? Even if that person is suffering.What would you call it? Wouldn't you call it killing.
I will say that life is something complicated. It is not something that we could ever realise and
understand 100 percent but each and every single person lives for a reason and when someone
would die i definitly don't have the choice to choose whether to kill that person or not even if he or
she is suffering. Maybe yes a person would absolutely like to avoid suffering and have a relaxed
life but sometimes and mostly always things don't always turn out to be exactly like what we want.

So I think it depends on how a person believes in God if he or she have faith in God then they will
know that this is the will of God and will take it. We can't say that there is a life with no suffering
each and every person in his life have suffered in their life but it is how you deal with them that
matters and not to run away because you're afraid to face them or afraid that you would suffer
because they alwaus say that you will always face your biggest fears in your life. So i would never
kill a person and take the blame for it my entire life as i might someday sit alone and ask myself a
question, did i kill my mother?
Even if their relatives may be suffering from watching their loved one's condition detiriorate, they
have no right to either decide or put pressure on a person to end their own life because of their
own sufffering. Just as it may be the individuals right to die it is also the right of the individuals
right to "rage against the dieing of the light" with their support of their family so to speak.
While it may be an 'agony to watch a loved one deteriorate' many will also want to spend as long
as possible with their loved ones, and more than likely a family will be split on the matter meaning
that the views of the family would have to have no impact on the matter.
It is not moral to end the patient's life because he has the right to live longer
o

Patients that are in comas and have not indicated that they wish to die have the right to continue
thier lives until the natural end. Who are we to say that they should die when it is convenient to
us? That should be left unto God to decide.

This point should be erased.

The debate specifically says "Do you agree or disagree with euthanasia or mercy killing?".
What is being advocated is the right of an individual to make a decision, not to have a say or
coerce an individual to make the decision to want to die. Although in some cases, involuntary
euthanasia has a dark region (grey area).

It is murder
o

Religious and secular morality decrees that no one has the right to take the life of another human
being, A principle stated in the Quaran "[2.28] [Allah] will cause you to die and again bring you to
life, then you shall be brought back to Him." This surah states that if a creator has created an
individual than it p.b.u.h will decide whether you live or die and you can not take matters into your
own hands.[[ University of Michigan "The Koran"http://quod.lib.umich.edu/cgi/k/koran/koran-idx?
type=simple&q1=life&q2=&q3=&amt=0&size=more
. This principle must be safeguarded by law, as moral absolutes of this kind are necessary for a
functioning legal system.

Voluntary Euthanasia gives doctors too much power

o

The prestigious position of doctors could quite easily be abused if euthanasia were to become
legalised. A prime example of this would be the late Dr Harold Shipman, who killed between 215
and 260 elderly women[[ Bonnie Malkin et al " Harold Shipman in dictionary of
biography"http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1574271/Harold-Shipman-in-dictionary-ofbiography.html Acccessed 01.06.09]] Vulnerable, ill people trust their doctor and if he confidently
suggested a course of action, it could be hard to resist. A patient and his family would generally
decide in favour of euthanasia according to the details fed to them by their doctor. These details

may not even be well founded: diagnoses can be mistaken and new treatment developed which
the doctor does not know about. Surely it is wrong to give one or two individuals the right to
decide whether a patient should live or die? On the contrary, the majority of doctors would make
well-informed, responsible and correct decisions, but for those few like Harold Shipman, they can
get away with murder, undetected, for 23 years.[[ Bonnie Malkin et al " Harold Shipman in
dictionary of biography"http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1574271/Harold-Shipman-indictionary-of-biography.html Acccessed 01.06.09]]

1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.

All the Yes points

It frees up hospital beds and resources
It ends the patient life because he/she is already terminally ill
It relieves suffering
Right to choose
Relatives spared the agony of watching their loved ones deteriorate beyond recognition
It reduces the spread of diseases
It removes the economic burden from relatives

1.
2.
3.
4.
5.

All the No points

It is not moral to end the patient's life because he has the right to live longer
It is murder
Sanctity of life
Making the decision for yourself, or others?
Voluntary Euthanasia gives doctors too much power
Euthanasia - "mercy death"
The mankind rebel against God of the Bible in many ways. One of this kind
of rebellion is euthanasia in other words merciful killing or mercy death. On
this article, I brought forth why euthanasia is wrong and sin against God.
Euthanasia
Euthanasia derives from Greek words eu and thanatos. Eu means good and
well and thanatos means death. Euthanasia is defended and justified that
suffering patient get merciful death and termination of life by a doctor at the
request of a patient.
On passive euthanasia at the request of a patient, the medical treatment
will be finished, all treatments that should keep the patient alive. On active
euthanasia at the request of patient all treatments will be finished, when
has stated that not exist any treatments that could cure the patient. On
active euthanasia is used lethal substances such as lethal injections.
Assisted killings or death and medical treatment in aid of an easy death are
concepts of euthanasia.

On assisted killings or death, fatally ill patient at his own request gives to
another person commit suicide on the behalf of the patient. On assisted
killings or death can put down a life of the patient who is on the coma,
although he can't anymore express his own will.
On medical treatment in aid of an easy death fatally ill patient wants to
make suicide, but can't do it physically; therefore, someone else helps him
and kills him.
Justifications of euthanasia
Justifications for euthanasia:
-

Patient has the right to decide his own life

Patient has the right to self-determination
Patient should have the right to choose his own fate
Patient should have the right to end his life when sufferings are too hard
Fatally ill patient is the economic burden to his family

It is very unfortunately that people are familiarized to euthanasia, and

godless people have been deceived by the deception of euthanasia.

PRO Euthanasia or Physician-Assisted

Suicide

CON Euthanasia or Physician-Assisted Suicide

1. Right to Die

PRO: "The right of a competent, terminally ill

person to avoid excruciating pain and
embrace a timely and dignified death bears
the sanction of history and is implicit in the
concept of ordered liberty. The exercise of
this right is as central to personal autonomy
and bodily integrity as rights safeguarded by
this Court's decisions relating to marriage,
family relationships, procreation,
contraception, child rearing and the refusal or
termination of life-saving medical treatment.
In particular, this Court's recent decisions
concerning the right to refuse medical
treatment and the right to abortion instruct
that a mentally competent, terminally ill
person has a protected liberty interest in
choosing to end intolerable suffering by
bringing about his or her own death.
A state's categorical ban on physician

CON: "The history of the law's treatment of assisted suicide in this

country has been and continues to be one of the rejection of nearly
all efforts to permit it. That being the case, our decisions lead us to
conclude that the asserted 'right' to assistance in committing suicide
is not a fundamental liberty interest protected by the Due Process
Clause."
-- Washington v. Glucksberg(63 KB)
US Supreme Court Majority Opinion
June 26, 1997

assistance to suicide -- as applied to

competent, terminally ill patients who wish to
avoid unendurable pain and hasten inevitable
death -- substantially interferes with this
protected liberty interest and cannot be
sustained."
-- ACLU Amicus Brief in Vacco v. Quill(72
KB)
American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU)
Dec. 10, 1996
2. Patient Suffering at End-of-Life
PRO: "At the Hemlock Society we get calls
daily from desperate people who are looking
for someone like Jack Kevorkian to end their
lives which have lost all quality... Americans
should enjoy a right guaranteed in the
European Declaration of Human Rights -- the
right not to be forced to suffer. It should be
considered as much of a crime to make
someone live who with justification does not
wish to continue as it is to take life without
consent."
-- Faye Girsh, EdD
Senior Adviser, Final Exit Network,
"How Shall We Die," Free Inquiry
Winter 2001

CON: "Activists often claim that laws against euthanasia and

assisted suicide are government mandated suffering. But this claim
would be similar to saying that laws against selling contaminated
food are government mandated starvation.
Laws against euthanasia and assisted suicide are in place to
prevent abuse and to protect people from unscrupulous doctors and
others. They are not, and never have been, intended to make
anyone suffer."
-- Rita Marker, JD
Executive Director
Kathi Hamlon
Policy Analyst
International Task Force on Euthanasia and Assisted Suicide
"Euthanasia and Assisted Suicide: Frequently Asked Questions,"
www.internationaltaskforce.org
Jan. 2010

3. Slippery Slope to Legalized Murder

PRO: "Especially with regard to taking life,
slippery slope arguments have long been a
feature of the ethical landscape, used to
question the moral permissibility of all kinds
of acts... The situation is not unlike that of a
doomsday cult that predicts time and again
the end of the world, only for followers to
discover the next day that things are pretty
much as they were...
We need the evidence that shows that
horrible slope consequences are likely to
occur. The mere possibility that such
consequences might occur, as noted earlier,
does not constitute such evidence."
-- R.G. Frey, DPhil
Professor of Philosophy, Bowling Green

CON: "In a society as obsessed with the costs of health care and
the principle of utility, the dangers of the slippery slope... are far from
fantasy...
Assisted suicide is a half-way house, a stop on the way to other
forms of direct euthanasia, for example, for incompetent patients by
advance directive or suicide in the elderly. So, too, is voluntary
euthanasia a half-way house to involuntary and nonvoluntary
euthanasia. If terminating life is a benefit, the reasoning goes, why
should euthanasia be limited only to those who can give consent?
Why need we ask for consent?"
-- Edmund D. Pelligrino, MD
Professor Emeritus of Medicine and Medical Ethics, Georgetown
University
"The False Promise of Beneficent Killing," Regulating How We Die:
The Ethical, Medical, and Legal Issues Surrounding PhysicianAssisted Suicide

State University
"The Fear of a Slippery Slope," Euthanasia
and Physician-Assisted Suicide: For and
Against
1998

1998

4. Hippocratic Oath and Prohibition of Killing

PRO: "Over time the Hippocratic Oath has
been modified on a number of occasions as
some of its tenets became less and less
acceptable. References to women not
studying medicine and doctors not breaking
the skin have been deleted. The muchquoted reference to 'do no harm' is also in
need of explanation. Does not doing harm
mean that we should prolong a life that the
patient sees as a painful burden? Surely, the
'harm' in this instance is done when we
prolong the life, and 'doing no harm' means
that we should help the patient die. Killing the
patient--technically, yes. Is it a good thing-sometimes, yes. Is it consistent with good
medical end-of-life care: absolutely yes."

CON: "The prohibition against killing patients... stands as the first

promise of self-restraint sworn to in the Hippocratic Oath, as
medicine's primary taboo: 'I will neither give a deadly drug to
anybody if asked for it, nor will I make a suggestion to this effect'...
In forswearing the giving of poison when asked for it, the Hippocratic
physician rejects the view that the patient's choice for death can
make killing him right. For the physician, at least, human life in living
bodies commands respect and reverence--by its very nature. As its
respectability does not depend upon human agreement or patient
consent, revocation of one's consent to live does not deprive one's
living body of respectability. The deepest ethical principle restraining
the physician's power is not the autonomy or freedom of the patient;
neither is it his own compassion or good intention. Rather, it is the
dignity and mysterious power of human life itself, and therefore, also
what the Oath calls the purity and holiness of life and art to which he
has sworn devotion."

-- Philip Nitschke, MD
Director and Founder, Exit International
"Euthanasia Sets Sail," National Review
Online
June 5, 2001

-- Leon Kass, MD, PhD

Addie Clark Harding Professor, Committee on Social Thought and
the College, University of Chicago
"Neither for Love nor Money," Public Interest
Winter 1989

5. Government Involvement in End-of-Life Decisions

PRO: "We'll all die. But in an age of
increased longevity and medical advances,
death can be suspended, sometimes
indefinitely, and no longer slips in according
to its own immutable timetable.
So, for both patients and their loved ones,
real decisions are demanded: When do we
stop doing all that we can do? When do we
withhold which therapies and allow nature to
take its course? When are we, through our
own indecision and fears of mortality,
allowing wondrous medical methods to
perversely prolong the dying rather than the
living?
These intensely personal and socially
expensive decisions should not be left to
governments, judges or legislators better
attuned to highway funding."

CON: "Cases like Schiavo's touch on basic constitutional rights,

such as the right to live and the right to due process, and
consequently there could very well be a legitimate role for the
federal government to play. There's a precedent--as a result of the
highly publicized deaths of infants with disabilities in the 1980s, the
federal government enacted 'Baby Doe Legislation,' which would
withhold federal funds from hospitals that withhold lifesaving
treatment from newborns based on the expectation of disability. The
medical community has to have restrictions on what it may do to
people with disabilities - we've already seen what some members of
that community are willing to do when no restrictions are in place."
-- Stephen Drake. MS
Research Analyst, Not Dead Yet
"End of Life Planning: Q & A with Disabilities Advocate," Reno
Gazette-Journal
Nov. 22, 2003

-- Los Angeles Times

"Planning for Worse Than Taxes," Opinion
Mar. 22, 2005
6. Palliative (End-of-Life) Care
PRO: "Assisting death in no way precludes
giving the best palliative care possible but
rather integrates compassionate care and
respect for the patient's autonomy and
ultimately makes death with dignity a real
option...

CON: "Studies show that hospice-style palliative care 'is virtually

unknown in the Netherlands [where euthanasia is legal].' There are
very few hospice facilities, very little in the way of organized hospice
activity, and few specialists in palliative care, although some efforts
are now under way to try and jump-start the hospice movement in
that country...

The evidence for the emotional impact of

assisted dying on physicians shows that
euthanasia and assisted suicide are a far cry
from being 'easier options for the caregiver'
than palliative care, as some critics of Dutch
practice have suggested. We wish to take a
strong stand against the separation and
opposition between euthanasia and assisted
suicide, on the one hand, and palliative care,
on the other, that such critics have implied.
There is no 'either-or' with respect to these
options. Every appropriate palliative option
available must be discussed with the patient
and, if reasonable, tried before a request for
assisted death can be accepted...

The widespread availability of euthanasia in the Netherlands may be

another reason for the stunted growth of the Dutch hospice
movement. As one Dutch doctor is reported to have said, 'Why
should I worry about palliation when I have euthanasia?'"
-- Wesley J. Smith, JD
Senior Fellow in Human Rights and Bioethics, Discovery Institute
Forced Exit
1997

Opposing euthanasia to palliative care...

neither reflects the Dutch reality that palliative
medicine is incorporated within end-of-life
care nor the place of the option of assisted
death at the request of a patient within the
overall spectrum of end-of-life care."
-- Gerrit Kimsma, MD, MPh
Associate Professor in Medical Philosophy
Evert van Leeuwen, PhD
Professor in Philosophy and Medical Ethics
Center for Ethics and Philosophy at Free
University in Amsterdam (Amsterdam,
Netherlands)
"Assisted Death in the Netherlands:
Physician at the Bedside When Help Is
Requested"
Physician-Assisted Dying: The Case for
Palliative Care & Patient Choice
2004
7. Healthcare Spending Implications
PRO: "Even though the various elements that CON: "Savings to governments could become a consideration.

make up the American healthcare system are Drugs for assisted suicide cost about $35 to $45, making them far
becoming more circumspect in ensuring that less expensive than providing medical care. This could fill the void
money is not wasted, the cap that marks a
from cutbacks for treatment and care with the 'treatment' of death."
zero-sum healthcare system is largely absent
in the United States... Considering the way
-- International Task Force on Euthanasia and Assisted Suicide
we finance healthcare in the United States, it
"Frequently Asked Questions," www.internationaltaskforce.org
would be hard to make a case that there is a
(accessed May 27, 2010)
financial imperative compelling us to adopt
physician-assisted suicide in an effort to save
money so that others could benefit..."
-- Merrill Matthews, Jr., PhD
Director, Council for Affordable Health
Insurance
"Would Physician-Assisted Suicide Save the
Healthcare System Money?," Physician
Assisted Suicide: Expanding the Debate
1998
8. Social Groups at Risk of Abuse
PRO: "One concern has been that
disadvantaged populations would be
disproportionately represented among
patients who chose assisted suicide.
Experience in Oregon suggests this has not
been the case. In the United States, socially
disadvantaged groups have variably included
ethnic minorities, the poor, women, and the
elderly. Compared with all Oregon residents
who died between January 1998 and
December 2002, those who died by
physician-assisted suicide were more likely to
be college graduates, more likely to be Asian,
somewhat younger, more likely to be
divorced, and more likely to have cancer or
amytrophic lateral sclerosis... Moreover,
although 2.6 percent of Oregonians are
African American, no African American
patients have chosen assisted suicide."
-- Linda Ganzini, MD, MPH
Professor of Psychiatry and Medicine Senior
Scholar, Center for Ethics in Health Care at
Oregon Health & Science University
"The Oregon Experience," PhysicianAssisted Dying: The Case for Palliative Care
and Patient Choice
2004

CON: "It must be recognized that assisted suicide and euthanasia

will be practiced through the prism of social inequality and prejudice
that characterizes the delivery of services in all segments of society,
including health care. Those who will be most vulnerable to abuse,
error, or indifference are the poor, minorities, and those who are
least educated and least empowered. This risk does not reflect a
judgment that physicians are more prejudiced or influenced by race
and class than the rest of society - only that they are not exempt
from the prejudices manifest in other areas of our collective life.
While our society aspires to eradicate discrimination and the most
punishing effects of poverty in employment practices, housing,
education, and law enforcement, we consistently fall short of our
goals. The costs of this failure with assisted suicide and euthanasia
would be extreme. Nor is there any reason to believe that the
practices, whatever safeguards are erected, will be unaffected by
the broader social and medical context in which they will be
operating. This assumption is naive and unsupportable."
-- New York State Task Force on Life and the Law
"When Death Is Sought: Assisted Suicide and Euthanasia in the
Medical Context," newyorkhealth.gov
1994

9. Religious Concerns
PRO: "Guided by our belief as Unitarian
Universalists that human life has inherent

CON: "As Catholic leaders and moral teachers, we believe that life
is the most basic gift of a loving God- a gift over which we have

dignity, which may be compromised when life

is extended beyond the will or ability of a
person to sustain that dignity; and believing
that it is every person's inviolable right to
determine in advance the course of action to
be taken in the event that there is no
reasonable expectation of recovery from
extreme physical or mental disability...

stewardship but not absolute dominion. Our tradition, declaring a

moral obligation to care for our own life and health and to seek such
care from others, recognizes that we are not morally obligated to
use all available medical procedures in every set of circumstances.
But that tradition clearly and strongly affirms that as a responsible
steward of life one must never directly intend to cause one's own
death, or the death of an innocent victim, by action or omission...

We call on Catholics, and on all persons of good will, to reject

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED: That Unitarian proposals to legalize euthanasia."
Universalists advocate the right to selfdetermination in dying, and the release from
-- United States Conference of Catholic Bishops
civil or criminal penalties of those who, under
"Statement on Euthanasia," on www.usccb.org
proper safeguards, act to honor the right of
Sep. 12, 1991
terminally ill patients to select the time of their
own deaths; and...
BE IT FINALLY RESOLVED: That Unitarian
Universalists, acting through their
congregations, memorial societies, and
appropriate organizations, inform and petition
legislators to support legislation that will
create legal protection for the right to die with
dignity, in accordance with one's own choice.
-- Unitarian Universalist Association: The
Right to Die With Dignity, 1988 General
Resolution
Unitarian Universalist Association
1988
10. Living Wills
PRO: "Living wills can be used to refuse
extraordinary, life-prolonging care and are
effective in providing clear and convincing
evidence that may be necessary under state
statutes to refuse care after one becomes
terminally ill.

CON: "Not only are we awash in evidence that the prerequisites for
a successful living wills policy are unachievable, but there is direct
evidence that living wills regularly fail to have their intended effect...

When we reviewed the five conditions for a successful program of

living wills, we encountered evidence that not one condition has
been achieved or, we think, can be. First, despite the millions of
A recent Pennsylvania case shows the power dollars lavished on propaganda, most people do not have living
a living will can have. In that case, a Bucks
wills... Second, people who sign living wills have generally not
County man was not given a feeding tube,
thought through its instructions in a way we should want for life-andeven though his wife requested he receive
death decisions... Third, drafters of living wills have failed to offer
one, because his living will, executed seven
people the means to articulate their preferences accurately... Fourth,
years prior, clearly stated that he did 'not
living wills too often do not reach the people actually making
want tube feeding or any other artificial
decisions for incompetent patients... Fifth, living wills seem not to
invasive form of nutrition'...
increase the accuracy with which surrogates identify patients'
preferences."
A living will provides clear and convincing
evidence of one's wishes regarding end-of-- Angela Fagerlin, PhD
life care."
Core Faculty Member, Robert Wood Johnson Clinical Scholar
Program, University of Michigan Medical School

-- Joseph Pozzuolo, JD
Carl E. Schneider, JD
Professor, Neuman College
Chauncey Stillman Professor for Ethics, Morality, and the Practice of
Lisa Lassoff, JD
Law, University of Michigan Law School
Associate, Reed Smith
"Enough:
The
Failure
of
the Living Will," Hastings Center Report
Jamie Valentine, JD
2004
Associate, Pozzuolo & Perkiss
"Why Living Wills/Advance Directives Are an
Essential Part of Estate Planning," Journal of
Financial Service Professionals
Sep. 2005

The Pros of Euthanasia

1. An End To Suffering
People that are living with a terminal illness, or that
are in an irreversible coma, are suffering. This is
especially true when you look at the end of their
battle. The pain can be debilitating, and the only
option for these people are to take copious amounts
of drugs and painkillers to help numb the pain even
just a little bit. The quality of life is extremely low.
Euthanasia gives these people a way to stop theirs
and their familys suffering.
2. Death With Dignity
A person that is bed ridden and sick is at the mercy of
nurses, medical staff, and family for things like
eating, using the restroom, changing clothes, and
bathing. This can be very degrading for a person, and
many do not want to be a burden or remembered by
their family in such a way. Giving them the
opportunity to choose when they die and how they
die lets them take control of their own life, and the
ability to say what they want to say or do for their
family before their death.
3. Frees Up Funds And Equipment
Terminally ill patients, or people that are in
irreversible comas, use a large portion of the medical
funding available. This is also true for space that is
available in the hospitals and care facilities. While
this is by no means a good way to look at it, it is
simply an added benefit of euthanasia. These people,
instead of spending weeks, months, or even years
using these resources, could die in peace all while
saving money and space for the hospitals.
4. The Freedom To Choose
No body wants to be at the mercy of anybody else,

especially not a disease or sickness that has

controlled your life for so long. The biggest benefit of
euthanasia is simply having a choice. It puts people
back in control of their own life, when it matters the
most. This gives people a great sense of peace and
hope for their family.
The Cons of Euthanasia
1. Devalues Human Lives
By allowing our doctors to actively kill people,
they will begin to see euthanasia as a solution and it
will begin to be misused. This also gives the
impression to other places and young children that
the human life has a lesser value.
2. Religious and Ethical Problems
One of the most common brought up topics in the
euthanasia debate is that of religion. The majority, if
not all, religions have very strict views on taking
lives, especially your own. It is viewed as one of the
ultimate sins against God. The view that taking a life
in general is also popular, even without the mention
of religion.
3. Corruption Of The Worst Kind
There are tremendous costs involved in the care of
terminally ill patients or patients that are in a coma.
These valuable resources are saved in a great amount
if a person chooses to participate in physician
assisted suicide. This could prompt hospitals and
doctors to begin using euthanasia as a means of
money saving, which could result in people that have
not agreed, being killed.
Important Facts About Euthanasia

 The term euthanasia is from the Greek language,

and it literally means good death.
New Mexico, Montana, Oregon, Washington, and
Vermont are the only United States states that allow
physician assisted suicide.

Anyone who wishes to be euthanized must be over

the age of 18 years old.
Dr. Jack Kevorkian, also known as Dr. Death, was
one of the first doctors to actively pursue physician
assisted suicide for his patients.