another, and no one can take a choice away from another.
             Third, there is the principle of justice. Euthanasia is central to the liberty protected by the fourteenth amendment. Again, every human being of adult years has the right to decide what should be done with his or her body. This also applies to terminally ill patients who are especially in need of choices. They are at a situation in which they must be allowed to decide for themselves. Otherwise, it would be unconstitutional to deny them the freedom of choice in which everybody else has. It would be a crime to deny them this right because they are at the mercy of other people. Doctors and hospitals and sometimes the law itself deny a lot of terminally ill patients who wish to end their suffering by death.
             Medical authorities often have to consult courts when it comes to the issue of euthanasia. They fear the responsibilities because they lack concrete guidelines to exercise euthanasia. This only results in the prolonging of the suffering of the patients. It is absurd to put terminally ill patients through painful treatments unless they choose to, when euthanasia is available as an alternative choice.
             Opponents of euthanasia contend that life is too precious for anyone to decide to end it. Cardinal Bernardin, arguing against euthanasia, states," As individuals and as a society, we have the positive obligation to protect life ... not to destroy or injure human life directly, especially the life of the innocent and vulnerable" (70)
             ...