Euthanasia should be permissible only in certain cases. It is a controversial issue that society is facing. It is the practice of painlessly ending the lives of people who have incurable diseases. Some severely handicapped patients have ended their lives this way. The issue is whether physicians who practice euthanasia should be prosecuted. Some people euthanasia is a kind of mercy killing. Yet, others insist it is the same as murder. In my opinion, only in extreme cases, physicians should be allowed to end their patients' lives. These patients are ones considered to be permanently unconscious or in comas. They have no chance to recover. Everyone involved suffer. The hospital fee is quite costly.
             First of all, patient has no hope for recovery. He is being kept alive by breathing devices, artificial feeding, and medical procedures. He looks alive, but he is already dead. He can't digest his food. He can't breathe on his own. His heart can't even beat on its own. He exists with no hope for recovery. Joseph P. Shariro, author of A vote on legal euthanasia, states: "It's the nightmare of American medicine: to be kept alive in a hospital bed, sustained by machines and tubes, with no hope of recovery." I think it's morally wrong to artificially prolong the life of one who has no reasonable hope of medical recovery. This might be infringing upon God's prerogative to enact natural death. When some forms of support will not prevent death from such dying condition, the patient should be allowed to depart this life. The physician and his family should hasten the death by withdrawing those forms of support. They have the right to remove life support equipment. So that natural death can occur sooner. This is not taking life, but rather allowing God either to preserve life or take it. This leads us to our next rationale.
             ...