Few issues in medical ethics are as highly debated as death and euthanasia. The topic raises questions including who has the right to take a life and under what circumstances they may do so. Furthermore, it examines under what conditions a person is perceived as being dead or as having no quality of life left. Since the days of the ancient Greek philosophers, medical topics have rarely remained as controversial as euthanasia. From the Hippocratic Oath to the most recent of journal entries, the opinions on this matter are many and conflicting. This essay will examine the literature of this topic when divided into three distinct views: opposed to all types of euthanasia, supportive of passive euthanasia only, and supportive of active euthanasia.
             "I will neither give a deadly drug to anybody if asked for it nor will I suggest this effect." This excerpt from the Hippocratic Oath embodies the beliefs of groups opposed to all forms of euthanasia. Much literature of this school of thought is from religious groups. Paul Carrick, an opponent of all types of euthanasia, wrote Medical Ethics in Antiquity. Carrick believes that since it is God who gives us life, it should be only God that takes it away. "It is God's right to end life by natural means" (Carrick 93). The Biblical statements, "Thou shalt not kill" and "He who kills a man shall be put to death" have guided the views of our civilization for thousands of years. Others believe that the practice of euthanasia goes against the physician's moral responsibility. "Doctors heal the sick – they are to 'do no harm' and are otherwise grossly mislead" (Carrick 95). Another key issue is whether assisted suicide is necessary or just "a lazy form of medicine" (Jamison 27). "Although death is the ultimate endpoint in the care of all terminal patients, the emphases should not be on providing them with the means of suicide but on ensuring high-quality comfort care wherever possible" (27)...