Euthanasia is a serious and tricky problem in the modern society nowadays. The doctor-assisted suicide can be taken as an act of mercy to the terminally ill patients, but it also can be considered as a non-moral process, which undermines the value of the human's life itself. In fact, these two viewpoints became the battleground for people who are interested in this problem. The opponents of the legalization of euthanasia argue that the doctor-assisted suicide is unethical; this process is a murder, which undermines the principle of inviolability of life and gives too much power to physicians. However, as the supporters of mercy killing say, this process relieves the suffering of the terminally ill patients, supports their right to choose and frees the resources, which can be re-allocated to the people who want to live.
In general, terminally ill patients suffer an unbearable pain, merely waiting for their death. Alleviation of the symptoms through medications often does not help these people. In this case, it's more humane to let them pass away with comfort, making their last moments more pleasant for them. Some of the opponents of the mercy killing might say that the suffering is a part of human's life experience and some medications would prolong the patient's lives as much as possible to its natural conclusion. However, this method would not work for every person. As Veronique Hivon, Quebec Minister of Social Services, states: “”There are many terminally ill patients who suffer pain even after being induced into a coma”” (Patriquin par. 6). There is no life in the state like this, when you cannot experience all the things, which a normal person does. Not everyone has enough will to pass through all these hardships, knowing the fact that he is terminally ill. The terrible pain can make a person to decide to finish his life earlier, just not to experience the anguish.
The right to make this decision should be left to the patient. As we can see on the example of suicide, it is legal for patients to decide when they should pass away. Along the life path, people have a right to choose their future plans, career, and job. Why should we put the restriction on the decision of passing away, when it is the same thing as the decision of the future plans? If we will deny the right to choose, it may be considered as a fact that we own the patient’s life. People should be free to choose in which way they should plan their life. But the proponents of the restriction of euthanasia can say that this right would make people to make rapid and thoughtless decision which would led to the opportunity of making a mistake. As a