Research Paper on:
Reviewing the Issues of Euthanasia

Unformatted Sample Text from the Research Paper:
Euthanasia is, without a doubt, one of the most controversial topics of our time. It is not a new controversy, however, philosophers have argued for centuries  over the moral and ethical appropriateness of euthanasia. Contemporary philosophers, in fact, are just rehashing the same issues which occupied the more ancient philosophers of the world. When  one considers all the arguments, however, one can only come to one logical conclusion. Euthanasia is not only a morally and ethically permissible option in specific cases, it is  a moral and ethical responsibility. There are two types of euthanasia. In passive euthanasia the patient is removed from hospital equipment such  as resuscitators or feeding tubes which are believed to be sustaining their life. In contrast, in the more controversial active euthanasia the patient is administered a drug such  as morphine in sufficient quantity to cause their death. While there is still heated debate over active euthanasia or what has been come to be referred to as mercy  killing or physician-assisted suicide, some contend that there is not enough justification to deny a terminally ill patient passive euthanasia. Physicians and nurses often object to actively participating in  active euthanasia on the basis of their professional codes which explicitly prohibit the taking of life (Curtin, 1995). These same professionals recognize the ethical significance of such decisions and  actions (Vergara, 1995). Passive euthanasia, allowing the patient to die by suspending a medical treatment or withdrawing a medical treatment, has  become to be more accepted to the general public and the medical community than has active euthanasia, however. Beginning with the Karen Ann Quinlan case, several laws have been