Euthanasia, the act of relieving the prolonged pain and suffering of terminally ill patients by inducing death, has been the subject of controversy for sometime. Dying with dignity, the kind of end we hope for ourselves as well as others, has in some ways become more difficult. With the advancements in medicine having leaped forward within the last 20 years, prolonging life by means of technology has become common place in the medical community. These life-sustaining advances in treatments have brought up moral issues of whether it is the right of an individual to suppress his or her own life-sustaining treatment if they so desire. Our society has become a youth-worshipping society. It is almost as if we have taken on old-age and death as just another disease that need to be conquered. The fact is, we all die sooner or later. Death is not our enemy. It is as much a part of living as being born. Traditionally, doctors had the responsibility for deciding what should or should not be done for dying patients. Now, patients, their families, and patient representatives have a say in such decisions. To understand euthanasia we must be able to differentiate between passive and active euthanasia. Passive euthanasia is seen as non-treatment of an illness, whereas the untreated disease or ailment is left alone so as to run rampid in the person and kill them. Also, withholding a respirator is also considered passive. Active is seen as intentionally performing an action such as administering a lethal dose of medication. Physicians who go about such actions usually inject a lethal dose of a drug called Curare. Another form of active euthanasia would be removing a patient from a respirator with the intent that the patient will die. One such case would be that of Karen Ann Quinlan. The case of 21 year old Karen Ann Quinlan touched off a national debate about the care of the terminally ill. After Karen had been in a coma and attached to a respirator f...
