Euthanaisa: A Logical Choice?

3 Pages 802 Words

“National opinion polls show average support of Euthanasia at 70 percent in the USA, 74 percent in Canada and 80 percent in Britain" (Humphry 1). The clear-cut majority of these democratic populations are in favor of legalizing euthanasia. So why in Canada and most of the United States does euthanasia remain unlawful? If we live in the freest of free nations in the world, then why can one not exercise his or her freedom by taking his/her own life - especially if he or she is in an great amount of pain? If it has been established that the person is going to die, and that the death will be humiliating, painful, and protracted, not to mention time consuming and expensive, then he or she should be allowed to die. This is not an ethical or religious matter, but a question of freedom.
Active and passive euthanasia are the two main categories of euthanasia. Active euthanasia is typically the more passionately debated of the two acts of euthanasia and is better known because of the actions of Dr. Jack Kevorkian, who has aided in many successful suicides. Passive euthanasia, on the other hand, is rarely debated and usually never enters the mind's eye because it is typically viewed as letting someone die naturally. In passive euthanasia, one simply refuses treatment with the knowledge that death is forthcoming. This offers little room for debate for several reasons, primarily because it is seen as a natural way of dying. The exception, however, is that some religions refuse to accept treatment, even with the knowledge that without the treatment they will die. For example in the faith of the Jehovah's Witness, a child, who has been in a horrendous car accident and is in need of blood, will die rather that accept treatment. This kind of passive euthanasia could come under much scrutiny, but does not because it is tied to religious convictions. In either case, active or passive, the patient will die. There is essentially no difference between ...