f them only need an insignificant operation. But the family thinks it is better for loved one to die than to live in pain. Modern technological advances have made it possible for every physician to keep a person alive for long periods of time even when they are permanently unconscious or irrevocably brain damaged. Many believe that prolonging life using this type technology may cause great suffering to the patient and the family. In addition, certain life-support systems are so expensive that they cannot be provided to all the patients. But there is no real proof that the use of today’s technology produces suffering.Another problem with euthanasia is its lack of morals values. In euthanasia there are two ways that someone can die, passive or active. Passive means to kill the person and active means to let die. The problem with active and passive euthanasia is that in both cases the patient is going to die, and the suffering could be different. Suppose the doctor agrees to withhold treatment to a dying patient, it would be wrong to prolong his suffering needlessly. If one simply withholds treatment, it may take the patient longer to die, and so he may suffer more than he would if more direct action were taken and a lethal injection given. This fact provides strong reason for thinking that, once decision not to prolong his agony has been made, could also cause more agony and pain to the patient than when he was taking the treatment. It seems that no matter what the decision is the patient will suffer. If the crucial issue in the euthanasia debate is the intentional termination of the life of one’s life by another, then how can it be consistent to forbid mercy killing, yet deny that the cessation of treatment is the intentional termination of a life? The so-called difference between active and passive does not provide a useful, moral distinction.Euthanasia is a real threat to the integrity of what life stands for. It will alw...
