is the applicability of a person's attitude before becoming incapable of making rational decisions. Nancy Cruzan's parents maintained that she had "expressed a clear preference, in such a circumstance, for death" (New York Times, 12/3/89). The court rejected the parent's claim, seemingly doubting that the parent's were acting on true information and for the best interests of their daughter. Moreover, if an individual cannot make moral decisions for themselves which affect both the quality of their own life and the attitude and suffering of their loved ones, then does the state have the right to insist upon its moral judgment being paramount?
One can easily see how this argument has become more of a moral issue on the "right" to live or die, the "right" to commit suicide under certain circumstances, and the "right" to insist that life saving medical procedures that would reduce a loved one to a vegetable be withheld. Some argue that euthanasia is immoral for infants, children, minors, senile, or mentally ill persons because they are not competent to judge shades of moral and ethical behavior (Goldberg, 1987). Others believe that there are certain factors that tend to endorse euthanasia as a moral decision. This is particularly revealing since it places the burden of the moral responsibility on the parents, spouses, or partners of the individual involved (Wade, et.al., 1987). One other point is often made on the subject in the sense that it asks the question of whether euthanasia is moral as self deliverance or immoral as self destruction (Seiden, 1986). However, before proceeding to the issue of morality, it is first useful to present an overview of some of the major issues and attitudes surrounding euthanasia.
At the basis of the traditional view on euthanasia lies Christian teaching. Christianity teaches that every human was created in the image of God, therefore all human life is sacred and cannot be taken except by Go...