and that is stop the suffering of the patient”. A different version of the same argument is that doctors are not always responsible to do everything they can to save someone. If a doctor’s duty is to ease the pain of his patients, then why should this exclude the possibility of letting them die? If a patient has a terminal illness and is in great pain and the patient thinks they would rather die now than continue living with the pain, the doctor should be allowed to help. What about a person who is in a vegetative state for a prolonged period of time with no hope of recovery? Many believe that a doctor should do what he can up to a point. If a person is at the point where death is a blessing a doctor should not be forced to save a person if they go into cardiac arrest. Also it might be the patients decision for nothing to be done, in this case the doctor should do as instructed. Is euthanasia unethical? That is what the opposition argues. They preach that doctors too often play God on the operating tables and in the recovery rooms and doctors must always be on the side of life. The American Medical Association said, “Physicians dedicate their lives to the alleviation of suffering, to the enhancement and prolongation of life, and the destinies of humanity”. They clearly state the “alleviation of suffering” before “the enhancement and prolongation of life”. So if the reduction of pain would mean letting the person pass on, why would that be wrong and unethical? In some other parts of the world, euthanasia is viewed differently.In August of 1999, the Dutch government published plans to make euthanasia legal under some very strict guidelines. This plan would allow children as young as 12 to demand and receive the act of a “mercy killing.” Though these plans are not expected to receive parliamentary approval until 2000, the Netherlands is the first country to make strides at legali...
