"Should society enable chronically-ill citizens to end their lives when medicine offers no salvation?"
             An eighty-five year old grandmother on a respirator, a newborn child with AIDS, and a father crippled and confined to a wheelchair were all put to death by respectable doctors and with the "go ahead" from their family members. Is this permissible?
             Euthanasia, or doctor-assisted suicide, has become one of the most controversial issues of our time and one that raises many questions such as: how should decisions be made about the chronically-ill citizen, and by whom? Where lies the discretion between law and judgement? Should those who want to die, or who are in some form of persistent discomfort be allowed to die voluntarily? And who should decide: the patient, the physician, the law, or the families?
             Three principal reasons influence the opposition of Euthanasia. The first one being that the decision to end a life does not belong to the 'healthy' human to end another person's life regardless of their specific state; whether they are chronically-ill or not. Secondly, legalizing Euthanasia would only cause chaos within our society; and lower the respect amongst human life by lowering the barriers of law to killing. And lastly, that there are no conditions of life being meaningless and it should not be ended for any unjustifiable reason.
             As a democratic country, we are given choices as free individuals, and therefore cause people to think that they have the right to decide whether or not to terminate a human life. The widely held opinion of society is against Euthanasia primarily because society feels that it is God's task to determine when one of his creation's time has come to an end, and we as human beings are in no position to behave as God and end someone's life for them. Joseph Fletcher, author of The "Rights" To Live and To Die, states that "&q...