Euthanasia is a complex social, moral and legal issues that is made even more so because of our attitudes toward death and dying. The advent of new medical technologies, catastrophic illnesses (like AIDS) and the enormous costs involved in caring for those who are terminally ill have put pressure upon society to define laws that are more clear about whether or not it is morally ethical to allow euthanasia. There are different forms of euthanasia but the two main distinctions made are whether the physician takes an active role in the process (known as active euthanasia), or if he opts for a passive role (passive euthanasia). In active euthanasia the physician administers a lethal dose of drugs which end the patient’s life. This type of euthanasia is generally not sanctioned by law, but passive euthanasia is generally sanctioned by law and many within the medical community and health care services, “…passive euthanasia…involves withdrawing life support from a patient or ending a type of therapy that prolongs life so that death can occur naturally. Allowing a deadly process to continue without intervention generally is accepted when a patient is not responding to treatment and there is no possibility the patient will benefit from additional treatment” (Hupfer 1). This concept is often seen as more ethical and in line with some religious sentiments about euthanasia because it is viewed as allowing the patient to die “naturally.” However, there are many ethical and religious considerations involved in the euthanasia debate that include both the active and passive form.
Where ethics and philosophers are concerned the debate over euthanasia is nothing new and it appears that philosophers have been as divided on the issue as the courts, religions and the medical community, “Plato, Thomas More, Francis Bacon, David Hume and Jeremy Bentham approved; Aristotle, Thomas Aquinas, Roger Bacon, John Locke and Karl Marx did n...