Some have suggested that we legalize physician-assisted suicide in California. They argue that we should find death before it finds us, and that the right to die is the right-to-choose. They are supporting such an initiative because they fear that they will have to endure horrible pain and live out a life encompassed by absolute suffering. By being able to end the torment, preferably legally, perhaps they can even relieve their families of some economic pressures. By legalizing "active" Euthanasia, the inducement of gentle death solely by means without which life would continue naturally, advocators of Euthanasia hope to save terminally-ill patients from a painful death and rather, allow dying patients to go on to the next life in peace. Those who endorse Euthanasia do so because they believe that to end a patient's suffering through such "mercy killing" is compassionate and as the name implies, a final act of mercy and love. It would save patients' family members the agony of having to watch a loved one die in unbearable pain. Furthermore, the principle of autonomy suggests that anyone who wishes to die should be allowed to, especially if this is his or her final wish. Advocators of Euthanasia believe that a person should be allowed to die in a painless, peaceful, and dignified way. Yet, those against Euthanasia say that Euthanasia is not mercy killing, but actually murder. They argue that God is the ultimate physician who decides the fate of one's life, and that we, human beings, have to right to decided whether someone lives or dies. Moreover, if that right were turned over to a physician, how can we be sure that the death of a patient is so imminent? Instead, physicians could just prolong life by the principle of double effect; for example, by increasing dosages of Morphine to relieve pain, while also possible increasing the chance of death. Ultimately, those against Euthanasia fear that legalizing Euthanasia will ca...
