This passive form is considered the "withholding or withdrawing life-sustaining treatment which became legal- (Last Rights, 172) So while the quality of life is in question both forms of euthanasia take the task of ending the life instead of attempting to aide the person to improved health, however if the doctor had a problem with killing a patient, he could merely remove life-sustaining equipment and let the patient die of his or her ailment or condition, freeing himself of any sense of murder
There is so much discussion over the quality of life, yet the definition of this principle lies within a gray area. Its definition consists of:.
Absolute value of human life and worth, it insists that human life is always worthy of respect and protection and that is should always be supported without adequate justification to the contrary. (Quality of Life, 35).
However, while human life has been given defined value and worth, it does not define the processes to keeping this quality of life. This quality can be kept by the sustaining of life or by the choice to cease the sustaining of life depending on the methods one considers to keep life sacred. In the process of keeping the quality of life sacred the fears of playing God come into effect, as the choice of who has a right to live and a right to die. However, in the choice of lesser evils the right to life out weighs the right of death. .
The dignity and absolute value of life can be viewed as having and equally sacred death and the dwindling away on life-supporting machines conflicts against the sanctity of life by the fact it defaces the dignity of the person's life. Yet this administration of death still conflicts against the values of life, because the opposite of life is death, however with our mortal life comes death in the end. But who are we to decide the proper time for the end of something so sacred and holy as a human life, again the fear of playing God comes back into play.
