this kind of irresponsibility and neglect, who will ever know what really went on between a doctor and a patient when a patient is dead?" There is absolutely no way anybody can say for sure that patient wanted to be dead and not influenced by relatives who wanted to be relieved of burden or simply depression which could have been controlled with medicine. Terminally ill person can be easily influenced into believing that they dont need to live anymore by physicians or relatives who want inheritance. These could lead to chaos and a lot of suspicious cases.James Rachels in his article Active and Passive Euthanasia shares Nowell-Smith point of no difference between passive and active euthanasia. He says: "Part of my point is that the process of being 'allowed to die' can be relatively slow and painful, whereas being give a lethal injection is relatively quick and painless." (CMI, p.18) We can compare it to the war, when one person could kill another out of pity if he was dying out of serious wound and no help was around. During the war this would be considered a merciful act so the person is destined to die would not have to be in excruciating pain before he died. We could argue that nowadays help is always around and pain could be controlled with drugs but I dont' believe that any pain can be controlled. Also Rachels in his article gives a good point that if a doctor lets a patient die he puts himself in the same position as if he would give him a lethal injection. If there were a mistake, the regret would be the same. But does the physician has this right or should have this right to kill a person even if one wants to be killed? Today physicians are obliged to treat the patient as best as they can. Also can't it be considered as playing God and kill he patient without even knowing what is life after death. This point was raised by Harrison in Euthanasia, Medicine and the Law. Harrison said: "If physicians pushes the patient...
