lem of suffering by eliminating the sufferer". The choices and challenges faced by today's doctors, and the reality of their complex relationships with patients, peers, and social situations have left the Hippocratic oath behind. It is hard to say that the family has the right to demand that the doctor pull the plug just because they thought the patient would never want to live like this. James Rachels states in the article Active and Passive Euthanasia, "Many people think that killing someone is morally worse than letting them die". Despite their confused state, the family urges the physician to withhold the tube, thereby hastening death. The issue, quality of life, is perceived by the family: No one has the right to judge that another's life is not worth living. The basic right to live should not be abridged because someone decides that someone else's quality of life is too low. Once we base the right to live on 'quality of life' standards, there is no logical place to draw the line.I believe the only people that should be able to preform these types of "suicide operations" should be licensed practicians. They should be required to take courses helping them deal with the situation. These courses could possibly help them learn the laws and the rights they would have as doctors when faced with these situations. This also leaves the question of who is eligible for the operation? I believe only mentally competent patients should be allowed to be destroyed unless otherwise stated in a will by a person who is contained in a vegetative state. This could be the only way a person could be Shanty Gray Pg. 4terminated by a licensed physician. It is not up to any one person to decide another persons value of life or if their life is worth living. Many people disagree with euthanasia saying that it is immoral to kill someone and not letting them die naturally. Commonly people think of the killing off of another individual for profit bene...
