utanasia, which comes from the Greek words "Eu" meaning good and "Thanatos" meaning death, means the act of painlessly putting to death or allowing a person to die, for example by refusing extreme medical measures, a a person or animal suffering from an incurable disease, especially a pain, illness, or condition. Euthanasia may have a simple definition but it is much more complex and very controversial in the medical field where there is a clash from an ethical point of view. With today's advanced medical technology we are able to save many people from infections, injuries and cure many diseases. But there are still many diseases with no cure or for which many treatments are extremely painful and heartbreaking for both the patient and their family. Why should these people die so painfully if they don't want to? There are two forms of euthanasia; one is active euthanasia which involves carrying out an action that directly causes someone's death, to many this is known as "mercy killing". The second is passive euthanasia which allows a person to die by not doing something that would prolong life. This form of euthanasia is more widely accepted because there is nothing the doctor gives to the patient, the cause of death is the disease itself. But why not give a patient who has stopped treatment and is experiencing a painful death a life-ending drug if the patient requests it? A person has the right to die in the way he wishes, here is autonomy, the right to self-determination. Why should we prolong an agonizing death if we can speed it up? In Diane's case it's clear that she never wanted treatment for leukemia, which is fine as long as a doctor advises her to see if it's not just fear that's making her don't want... middle of paper... don't there is other option and it is not some other disease. Quill did the right thing by giving Diane the sleeping pills, in a situation like hers, being in control seems like such an important thing. And a sense of happiness in an otherwise very depressing phase of life is essential for the patient and his family. A doctor interrupts treatment at the patient's request because he knows that the treatment is not working and so why prolong the suffering of the patient and his family, because if it is acceptable for a doctor to interrupt treatment knowing that the patient will die, it is not acceptable for him give the patient pills that will give him a sense of control and have a more peaceful death. No doctor wants to see his patient die, but no human being can bear to see a person suffer knowing that he can easily stop the suffering and pain...

Topic > utanasia, which comes from the Greek words "Eu" meaning good and "Thanatos" meaning death, means the act of painlessly putting to death or allowing a person to die, for example by refusing extreme medical measures, a a person or animal suffering from an incurable disease, especially a pain, illness, or condition. Euthanasia may have a simple definition but it is much more complex and very controversial in the medical field where there is a clash from an ethical point of view. With today's advanced medical technology we are able to save many people from infections, injuries and cure many diseases. But there are still many diseases with no cure or for which many treatments are extremely painful and heartbreaking for both the patient and their family. Why should these people die so painfully if they don't want to? There are two forms of euthanasia; one is active euthanasia which involves carrying out an action that directly causes someone's death, to many this is known as "mercy killing". The second is passive euthanasia which allows a person to die by not doing something that would prolong life. This form of euthanasia is more widely accepted because there is nothing the doctor gives to the patient, the cause of death is the disease itself. But why not give a patient who has stopped treatment and is experiencing a painful death a life-ending drug if the patient requests it? A person has the right to die in the way he wishes, here is autonomy, the right to self-determination. Why should we prolong an agonizing death if we can speed it up? In Diane's case it's clear that she never wanted treatment for leukemia, which is fine as long as a doctor advises her to see if it's not just fear that's making her don't want... middle of paper... don't there is other option and it is not some other disease. Quill did the right thing by giving Diane the sleeping pills, in a situation like hers, being in control seems like such an important thing. And a sense of happiness in an otherwise very depressing phase of life is essential for the patient and his family. A doctor interrupts treatment at the patient's request because he knows that the treatment is not working and so why prolong the suffering of the patient and his family, because if it is acceptable for a doctor to interrupt treatment knowing that the patient will die, it is not acceptable for him give the patient pills that will give him a sense of control and have a more peaceful death. No doctor wants to see his patient die, but no human being can bear to see a person suffer knowing that he can easily stop the suffering and pain...