Euthanasia has become a subject of increasing public concern. In a sense, it is an issue which is a product of our technology. We have reached a point at which, through improved technology, we are able to keep individuals alive for longer periods of time. The problem is that they are often kept alive at an irreversible point in the living-dying interval and at a point of poor quality of life. We are able to keep individuals alive longer, but the quality of that existence is another issue. The hospital, with its emphasis on curing and saving, does not necessarily consider the quality of the life that is subsequently available to the patient. We may be saving a life, but we could say we are in fact prolonging the dying process in many cases. This also leads to greater financial and emotional stresses for those close to the dying person, as their anticipatory grief continues on. .
Active or positive euthanasia occurs when someone takes an action to end a life. Passive or negative euthanasia is a bit more difficult to define. It is, in effect, the decision to do nothing to continue life. Some people argue that passive and active euthanasia are simply different versions of the same thing (a decision to allow a death to occur). The outcomes and the motivations are similar. Others argue that there are differences between active and passive euthanasia. Active and passive euthanasia may differ in their psychological effects with commission to an action leading to more guilt feelings in the bereaved. However, the guilt that the survivors manifest is often a product of their interpretations of the event and not a function of whether the act was an active or passive one. .
Commission of an action implies deliberation, while omission implies an inability to make a decision. This seems to allow for decision by committee to reign supreme, assuring that no one individual has to make a decision.
