slade and Ross 8). Since that time, the idea of patient rights has been expanded to include the rights of the dying patient as well. In this regard, there has been a growing consensus that a person who is terminally ill has the right to be given an opportunity to play a role in his or her own fate (Trubo 124). Thus, it is generally believed that the patient deserves the right to know he is dying if he wants such information; that he should have the right to appraise his own condition with complete access to his medical chart and help determine further treatment; and that he should be able to refuse any treatment that may preclude a dignified and peaceful death" (Trubo 124).
The viewpoint of the doctor on the issue of euthanasia is usually somewhat different from that of the patient. Most physicians are opposed to euthanasia for four basic reasons. These are: (1) the fact that the Hippocratic Oath requires all doctors to try to save life rather than destroy it; (2) the possibility that the diagnosis may have been mistaken; (3) the possibility that a cure will be discovered at any time; and (4) the fear that the legalization of euthanasia would destroy patient confidence in doctors (Russell 221-224). This point of view is supported by the official perspective of the American Medical Association. In 1973, the AMA issued a policy statement presenting its views on euthanasia. In that statement, the AMA clearly denounced the practice of active euthanasia, stating that: ". . . the intentional termination of the life of one human being by another. . . is contrary to that for which the medical profession stands . . ." (Rachels 88). However, the AMA took a more lenient stand regarding the practice of passive euthanasia. Thus, the AMA statement also read: ". . . the cessation of the employment of extraordinary means to prolong the life of the body when there is irrefutable evidence that biological death is imminent is the decision...