y competent, and acting on their own free will. Most people accept the idea of passive euthanasia (unplugging a patient that has no hope of recovering) however, are whole-heartedly against any other form of it.
             Peck implies that submitting to assisted euthanasia is a cowardice act when he backs up one of his reasons for keeping it illegal by stating that we need to, "[...] learn how to face the natural existential suffering of life to learn how to overcome it, [...] that calls forth our courage" (164). This is far from a cowardice act according to Barney Marafchik, an advocate for the Hemlock Society. In a personal interview he stated that he feels that deciding on euthanasia is in fact a decision made out of great inner strength and tremendous thought and reasoning. McIver contends in his essay, concerning the option of quickly and purposely ending life, that it is "[...] an act of virtue, love, and compassion" (641). Marafchik and McIver have a better perception on euthanasia than Peck. When one is not mentally ill, there really is no other way to view the decision of euthanasia, other than an act of courage. Learning how to cope with suffering from a terminal illness that will inevitably result in death does not make sense, instead the concern needs to be directed to a patient's right to end his or her own sufferings with the help of a doctor.
             Peck believes that the solution to the issue of assisted suicide is more proficient hospice care as opposed to euthanasia and patients that choose the latter route have a problem with life not death. Although more hospice care would be a huge benefit, he did not expand enough on his reasons, as these patients do not have a problem with life in general but a life full of extreme physical pain and mental anguish that has no meaning, as they will never get better. McIver addresses this argument is his article as well, but from a different perspective. He ag...