Should society enable chronically ill citizens to end their lives when medicine offers no salvation? Yes and the answer is euthanasia. Euthanasia is a controversial subject, not only because there are many different moral dilemmas associated with it, but also in what constitutes its definition. Euthanasia is defined as the act of painlessly ending the life of a person for reasons of mercy. Advocates say euthanasia, which in Greek means easy death, is a good, or merciful, death. Although oppositions argue that euthanasia is a form of murder, they fail to realize the true nature of euthanasia and its reasoning. Suffering for the terminally ill, as well as the idea that we do not use the correct terminology for murder and death show the importance of euthanasia. In according with this, the right of choice is a right that all us humans have, even in situations of death. .
The worst feeling that humans have is pain. For instance, when pain gets to a certain extent that we can't live free, than the act of euthanasia should, and probably in the near future, be a choice that we all have. That's why laws allow passive euthanasia. Passive euthanasia is "Euthanasia without active intervention, relying on non- treatment" (Docker, Index page). This form of euthanasia has been used in times when it is evident that the patient's quality of life has no way of improvement. A person is not always in a vegetable state, which would be a non-voluntary. Thus, is living a life of pain life at all? Life does not include pain, not at the least. A good death is under the dying person's control and gives that person time to settle debts and fulfill obligations. Achieving "closure" is important. The term refers to settling differences, healing wounds, and closing gaps in human relationships. Closure is difficult or impossible when the timing of death is uncertain or when the patient is too physically frail or mentally impaired.
