The euthanasia movement was upset in 2002 when Nancy Crick, a supporter of active euthanasia, committing suicide by swallowing a fatal dose of medication. At the age of 69, Ms. Crick was diagnosed with terminal cancer. Several friends and family members, who accompanied her at the time of her death, were devastated to learn that the autopsy showed no evidence of new cancer that would have caused her "terminal" death. With this news, the physicians with the Australian Medical Association reconfirmed their standing against active euthanasia (Steel 32).

Human life is sacred and no one should have the right to take that life, therefore active euthanasia, or assisted suicide, should remain illegal. Death should come naturally, with medications as needed to control pain and suffering, but without assisted suicide. Others feel that active euthanasia is the answer and try to promote this as the "dignified death."

Controversy over euthanasia creates a problem because people are exhausting valuable time, energy, and resources on trying to legalize euthanasia when the existing laws are already adequate. Euthanasia is the term most people associate with helping someone commit suicide, ye

published in The England Journal of Medicine found that out of 69 of the deaths by the hand of Kevorkian, 75 percent were not terminally ill and five had no apparent disease (New Revelation). Dr. Kevorkian, drawing media attention, was also known as Dr. Death. If we were to legalize euthanasia throughout America, how many more Dr. Deaths would be at liberty to promote and preform active euthanasia? Each case, if considered to be active euthanasia, is legally examined through the justice system and should remain this way. By doing this, the law can determine whether it is a case of murder or mercy for each specific incident. If active euthanasia were legalized, it would not require each case to be examined and Kevorkian could still be preforming these acts of murder.

Just because something is legal, as is physician-assisted suicide in Oregon, does not make it right. Did you know that suicide is legal? Suicide and attempted suicide is not against the law. So, instead of trying to help these people with problems of suicidal tendencies we should be supplying them with the means and method of how to finish the job next time (Carter 588). That is absurd! It is the same dilemma with active euthanasia, we should be providing a "better end-of- life experience" in our society without killing. Those who promote active euthanasia tend to want to eliminate "the problem of suffering by eliminating the sufferer" (qtd. May 662).

8

Our understanding of others point of view in euthanasia is important, but this knowledge should promotes values and protect life. Can you imagine reading a book that explains how to preform assisted suicide, and also instructs on how to make it deceitfully look like a suicide so that the person who assisted would not be charged for murder? In Derek Humphry's book, Final Exit, he does just this. There are chapters dedicated to methods, dosages of medications, and uses of plastic bags over the head to suffocate the victim to death (Humphry 97-123). Dying with dignity may be important, but this doesn't seem like the way to go about it. How would you feel if the victim with the bag over his head was your grandfather? Is this death with dignity?

Some topics in this essay:
Robert Orr, Health Care, Hemlock Society, Jennifer Lindauer, Final Exit, Dr Deaths, Medical Association, Legal Judgement, active euthanasia, Jack Kevorkian, Ms Crick, terminally ill, assisted suicide, active euthanasia legal, remain illegal, passive euthanasia, health care, attorney health, life sacred, pain suffering, active euthanasia answer, attorney health care, euthanasia answer, durable power attorney, living durable power,