"The intentional termination of the life of one human being by another-mercy killing-is contrary to that for which the medical profession stands,"(p.235) said James Rachels on the topic of euthanasia. I believe, and strongly agree with Rachels, that mercy killing is not permissible and is not what medical professionals should be doing. If we look at these mercy killings, or voluntary active euthanasia, they are the patients' request, usually after a traumatic event occurs that they do not believe they can live through, for their doctor to kill them with an overdose. I do not believe that under those circumstances the doctor should be able to kill this person, as they may still wish to live, but are only acting out of fear and panic. However, one thing I do believe is morally permissible is voluntary passive euthanasia, this occurs when life-sustaining treatment is not administered to someone in extremely bad health. In this case, there is no one killing anyone else, they are only letting this person die. These two methods of life ending treatment are very different in their moral aspects. I believe voluntary passive euthanasia is not only morally permissible while active euthanasia is not, but also that people can be happier by choosing not to be kept on life support just to drag out the end of their life.
             First of all, the conditions at which these practices take place are usually very different. Voluntary active euthanasia is a timely and rash decision made by the patient to end his or her life because they no longer wish to live. These decisions are usually fueled by an event that they believe makes life not worth living. These can include a terminal disease, losing limbs, and paralysis. It is true that voluntary active euthanasia is illegal, but that does not mean that patients do not request it, and that doctors do not follow through with it. However, when we look at the other side, at voluntary passive euthana...