There are many sides to the dilemma of whether or not
euthanasia should be carried out. There is the question of morality, the
question of active versus passive euthanasia and the question of when
euthanasia should be put into use. None of these questions are totally
cut and dry. There seem to be more gray areas within this issue than
there are black and white. Yet when you look at the problem on a personal
level with the actual individuals involved, some of those gray areas
almost disappear. People are put on this earth to live. When it gets to
the point where the quality of a person's life gets so bad that they can
no longer function in the world, there is no reason to force that person
to stay alive. Euthanasia is therefore a necessary evil for those whose
practical life is in effect over due to a terminal illness or otherwise
life devastating condition.
If a person is in unbearable pain and close to death or is in a
vegetable state and no longer able to function, their life is by all
practical means over. There is no reason to keep them alive. The only
way to end their physical life is by euthanasia. The question is whether
to do this by way of active euthanasia or passive euthanasia. Many are
against active euthanasia because in this case you actually kill the
person rather than letting them die. But both methods are used for the
same end which is to end someone's life without further pain for the
patient as well as for the family. The only choice to make after this
fact is established is which of these means better carries out the end.
James Rachels, a philosophy professor, says that, 'if one...