dings that make no concessions to our finitude. Individuals cannot create their own morality by making their own rules, and morality cannot be purely a personal policy or code. The core parts of morality exist before their acceptance by individuals (Bioethics 1). As Leon said in a CODA: About Rights; we distort our understanding of rights and weaken their respectability in their proper sphere by allowing them to be invented without ground in nature or reason-in response to moral questions that lie outside the limited domain or rights. We distort out understating of moral deliberation and the moral life by reducing all complicated questions of right and good to questions of individual rights. Making the right to die valid because of the demand of the populace on their government to provide this desire which goes against the context that was written by John Locke that states that all natural and constitutional rights are based on the right to life. Euthanasia is the termination by one means or another of a human, life the justification for it will always be questionable. One of the primary things that make euthanasia unacceptable is the involvement of a second party. Since life is inherently valuable, no one should play a part, directly or indirectly, in terminating a life. However I do believe in passive euthanasia when the persons life is subjectively meaningless a person cannot possess, can no longer possess, or cannot achieve, any goals. The conviction that human life is of inestimable value and ought to be protected and cherished. The popularity of good death is promoted by the fantasy that is displayed in its definition, which is mercy killing. My concern comes from the intuition that legalizing euthanasia might well be abused, with some persons life being ended, against his or her consent, for a motive other than mercy. We also know that diagnosis and prognosis of a disease can be wrong. The right to die may well bec...
