Let's view it as a controlled means to an end.
As described in the definition, given at the beginning of the paper, there are two types of euthanasia: active and passive. Active euthanasia would be taking deliberate steps to end a life, or the putting to death of another person. Passive euthanasia would be more along the lines of taking no action to further prolong life. I pretty solid views on both, and will start with passive euthanasia first. The passive form of euthanasia, I think, is just no good. In my eyes, it is the support of suffering, and extra, unnecessary pain. .
Supporters of passive euthanasia, probably fall into the category of people who think it is wrong to kill someone intentionally. These people will support the idea of passive euthanasia, with the notion that it not murdering a person, but simply letting a person come to death naturally. Now, I"m going to have to support James Rachels in his view on passive euthanasia, and say that it is far worse to let someone die by withholding treatment, than to euthanise. When someone is terminally ill, they usually don't die without pain first. If a terminally ill patient, for whatever reason, didn't have extraordinary amounts of pain, then euthanisation wouldn't be necessary, or warranted. So, for sake of argument, we will assume that people eligible for euthanisation are in great amounts of pain. This is also a valid time to state that not only the victim suffers, but also there family as well. They are the ones who have to stand by, helplessly, and watch a loved one die in pain. This said, who, in a proper state of mind, would want to stand by and watch, as someone dies an excruciating death? You would think a family of a terminally ill person would support him/her in their decision to die peacefully.
That is exactly why I support the active form of euthanasia. At the risk of sounding like a veterinarian, it is so much more humane.