n America still do help their loved ones to die every year (Humphry, Final Exit 30).
As noted, medical science today can prolong life but may not be able to restore full functioning to the sufferer, in which case the human suffering involved is also being prolonged:
When technology becomes an end in itself, unduly prolonging the dying process, it creates a paradox in which human dignity may be undermined and where the goals of treatment are distorted to accommodate the imperatives of technology. . . Decisions that subordinate the humane dying of a terminally ill man or woman to the technological imperative, or personal or institutional self interest legal, financial, professional are not consistent with Christian values and traditions (Tong 27).
The purpose of medical science is to alleviate human suffering, not to prolong it, and the stricture against active euthanasia contributes to the continuation of suffering in many cases. Tong finds that the idea of active euthanasia, while distasteful to many and while being something most Americans state they would not choose, is also something most Americans today feel should be a matter of personal choice and should be judged on an individual basis:
The fact that so many people are interested in euthanasia is not necessarily a sign that this is a death driven culture. On the contrary, we are a culture very much enamored with life and almost obsessive about our physical and psychological well being. Few of us like pain and suffering, and only those of us who are profoundly religious can find meaning in them (Tong 33).
Physicians tend to assume that what patients and families want is resuscitation-life at all costs, but is seems that this is less and less true as surveys show that public opinion is overwhelmingly on the side of withdrawing all "invasive" and "extraordinary" treatment in such cases ("Euthanasia; what is the 'good death'?" 21). In many cases, the patient who ...