through death's door he does so without knowing what is on the other side. That is a denial of responsibility." (CMI, p.15) Nowell-Smith in his article didn't mention a physician's role in euthanasia, which was one of his weaknesses. Nowell-Smith also didn't talk much about social impact of euthanasia, analyzed by Harrison. Harrison believes that legalizing euthanasia can bring social advantages like speed up turnover of beds in hospitals and reduced cost of terminal illness. Reasons like this can lead to abusing euthanasia and probable massive killing, legal killing as horrible as this sounds. Nowell-Smith says that person should have a right to decide if he wants to die but patient asking for death may be asking for relieve from mental and physical pain. Is euthanasia is the only way to relieve patient from this pain? Another good argument against Nowell-Smith saying that people should decide when they want to end their lives is by Harrison who is saying that the decision could be brought by emotions, which is probably often the case, but emotions are not a good base for rational judgment. The issue of euthanasia is very complicated, both sides have strong arguments and I dont' think that consensus will ever be reached. A lot of people have different experiences, different lives and points of view. A lot of debates and research is going on but every person have his own moral, religious and practical standards and beliefs and I dont' believe that by having a certain point of view one can change his to the opposite easily....
