h is that it will probably not happen. It is true that doctors have been wrong about such things, but it is such a small percentage that it does not make sense to try with everyone. Of course, if the family wants to keep that person alive no one will stop them. However, if the family should choose to end that person's life in, what they believe is, the best interest of the ill person, then they should have that option. An action that radical, though, would have to be cleared by several medical opinions and with a family counselor who would explain to the family what it would mean to take the person off live support. An argument that people have used against euthanasia is that in the Constitution, it guarantees the right to life but not the right to death. However, death is just another phase of life. We are born, we live, and then we die. It is an unavoidable part of being alive: the knowledge that someday everyone will die. Another part of the Constitution they argue is that attempted suicide is a crime so how can euthanasia be legal. The answer is that the people who are euthanized are terminally ill or in such discomfort that their quality of life has gone down to a degree not worth living. It is also monitored to be sure that the patients are actually in a state in which euthanasia would be beneficial. People who commit suicide are merely depressed and think their life cannot get any better. Those who are terminally ill know that their life will not get any better. Also, who is to say that a law against suicide is right? That is the great thing about the Constitution: it can change as the times change. Another argument is that not all that can be done should be done to preserve a life. The advances of technology have disturbed the natural balance of life and death. No longer does a person die when they naturally would; life-support now prevents that. Opponents say doctors should not play God by kil...
