ot” (Hall 1). The primary and most vocal objection to any form of euthanasia comes from those who most strongly believe in God. The majority of religions feel that it is the moral obligation of the individual to live until they die from natural causes. Ending one’s life is not viewed as a personal choice, but is seen outside of the realm of individual authority. This reasoning has often been used as a justification against any form of suicide, but the erosion of organized religion has prevented this view from being solid enough ground to create definitive euthanasia laws. The most stringent and loudest non-religious objection to euthanasia comes from those who view the ending of your own life as a decision that is not rational, “The main non-religious objections stem from the belief, held by many people, that it is irrational to want to commit suicide. In someone bent on suicide, it is argued, depression or mental illness-or even excruciating pain-must be interfering with the making of a rational choice” (Last 2).
Aside from passive or active euthanasia there is also the distinction of doctor-assisted (which can be either passive or active) euthanasia as opposed to voluntary euthanasia. In voluntary euthanasia it is the patient who actually accelerates the death process by taking medication or “pulling the plug” with or without the presence of a physician. In Australia, Dr. Philip Nitschke and computer analyst Des Carne developed a computer program that hooks the patient up to a computer which will administer a lethal dose of drugs once the patient moves through the software program’s steps and clicks the button that signals their acknowledgement and agreement to end their own life. Nonetheless, there is tremendous pressure on law makers to define the legal ramifications of any type of euthanasia because it places a tremendous moral and legal burden upon physicians who do not have clear cut guidelines from whi...