in doing so.If the person is not able to make this decision there should be a few options, a living will, the family’s choice, and the doctor’s choice. A living will should be allowed to control the outcome if the person is unable to. If there is no living will the family, consulting with a qualified physician, should be allowed to decide for the patient. The one situation that is most controversial is a patient with no family or no family member qualified to make the decision. Some think the doctor should be able to make the decision for the patient. The doctor should be allowed to decide if the patient has reached the point of only getting worse and in considerable pain. In any of these situations a doctor should be at least an advisor, they are the ones with the medical knowledge, and know the present condition of the patient and the alternatives. In some cases, like terminal illness, “death is often better than dying”, mainly due to the way that the person will die. They may have to go thorough a long period of pain and suffering.Ask yourself which you would choose, early or prolonged death. Even if one does not think that they are ending the life of themselves or another, personal views decide that it is not the right thing for another to do.Does any person have the right to control the choices of others? Another argument is that nothing should be done to preserve a life. The advances of technology have disturbed the natural balance of life and death. No longer does a person die when they are supposed to; life-support now prevents that. Opponents say doctors should not play God by killing patients, but do they realize that by prolonging death the medical profession is doing exactly that?Christian Barnard, at the World Euthanasia Conference, was quoted as saying, “I believe often that death is good medical treatment because it can achieve what all the medical advances and technology cannot achieve today...
