keeping people alive who are permanently damaged with no hope of recovery may clearly change the conception of the Judeo-Christian tradition of the sanctity of life (Larue 12).
One of the problems in dealing with this issue lies in the wide range of medical techniques that are continually being developed. Biological existence may be prolonged almost indefinitely, even though brain activity has completely ceased. As well, since 1968 the legal definition of death has changed in the United States. Various courts in different geographic locations define the situation differently, and the views appear incompatible. These views range from support for full patient autonomy to prohibition of even passive euthanasia (Capron 290-320).
Public attitudes have also changed dramatically within recent decades. The research indicates that Americans are becoming more tolerant of passive euthanasia, and even supporting a more uniform orientation of criteria for deciding when medical attention should be relegated. In the same manner, though, opinion about quality of life issues falls short of a blanket statement on euthanasia, and such issues as capital punishment and abortion often enter into the equation (Sawyer 521-33).
One interesting, and somewhat insurmountable, issue is that of what euthanasia should actually be defined as. So many variables are present that it is almost impossible to distinguish a cogent definition of the problem. Nevertheless, suggestions have been made that include the intentions of the outside party, the seriousness of the injury, an understanding of the type of suffering the patient is likely to experience, and the prognosis for the return of a quality of life that is acceptable to both the patient and his or her family (Adams 62-8; Singh 247-54).
Proponents for the idea of euthanasia base their attitudes on two general statements: compassion and common sense in dealing with contemporary problems, and t...