iminished in the intentions of the medical profession. However, to suggest thatactive euthanasia, if legalized, would become a popular and preferred treatment bydoctors is unrealistic. I believe that active euthanasia would not conflict with theintentions of doctors, but actually provide doctors with another outlet for improving thewell-being and autonomy of a patient. . In addition, the image of doctors as healers willremain intact and confidence in doctors would increase because he would have theauthority to carry-out his patients wishes. A third objection to the legalization of active euthanasia is that active euthanasiaerodes the progress of the right to refuse treatment. It must be kept in mind that thepatient still has the right to refuse treatment and could completely reject the idea ofactive euthanasia if active euthanasia were legalized. The legalization of activeeuthanasia would actually strengthen the right to refuse treatment because health careproviders would take the wishes of the patient into more consideration. I believe that thelegalization of euthanasia would assert the value of autonomy and the wishes of thepatient to be carried out. Therefore, the patients wishes to refuse treatment would bemore carefully adhered to.The fourth and final objection to the legalization of active euthanasia is that theoption of active euthanasia would change the attitude of society, and bring aboutwidespread abuse of the law. I disagree with this objection wholeheartedly. It isridiculous to assume that people who are in great pain and suffering would not choosethe option of active euthanasia if it were illegal, and would choose the option if activeeuthanasia were legal. I believe the decision of active euthanasia is much too personaland important to be affected by the legality of active euthanasia. Moreover, there areobviously far greater factors at work in the mind of someone who is considering activeeuthanasia as an option...
