elps to bring on the patient's death byproviding the means to do it or by giving the necessaryinformation on how to do it, but the patient performs the lethal act. The typical procedure is for the patient to takea lethal dose of poison, such as swallowing pills, byinjecting himself or by inhaling a gas that the patient hasasked the physician to prescribe for that purpose. In such acase, as in euthanasia, both the physician and patient areresponsible for bringing about death.(McCuen pg. 74)The ethical arguments for and against euthanasia/PAShave remained largely unchanged for centuries. Thesearguments can be organized under three themes: autonomy,killing vs. allowing to die, and beneficence. Autonomy isthe central issue for euthanasia advocates. "Death withdignity" and the so-called "right to die" are familiarbanners in this argument. These expressions are taken tomean that each person has the right to control his or herbody and life and so should be able to determine at whattime, in what way and by whose hand he or she will die. JackKevorkian is the symbolic cheerleader for promoting absoluteautonomy as the fundamental moral value. While everyone agrees that autonomy is an importantvalue, the question is, Just how far does autonomy extend? Acounter argument to autonomy as a justification foreuthanasia/PAS can be made on the basis of religious beliefsand moral philosophy. While Enlightenment ideas aboutfreedom led rationalists to question the traditionalreligious strictures against euthanasia and suicide, theChristian opposition to these practices did not weaken. According to Christian beliefs, the sovereignty of Godand the human responsibility for stewardship limit ourfreedom to control life. God has absolute dominion overlife, and we share in that dominion only as limitedcreatures. Larson and Amundsen convincingly show that theJudeo-Christian perspective rejects the idea that one's lifeis like a possession -- one's own to control, to ...
