If a separate question was asked or the people were informed of the difference, we would find that only thirty-eight percent of the population approves of active suicide, as used by Kavorkian. So the fact that people approve of euthanasia is irrelevant because only thirty-eight percent would actually pass a law if they knew that Kavorkianmethods would be allowed. However, it is said that passive euthanasia, suicide by the removal of life support, is a long-time practice for hospitalized patients. But does this make it O.K? I should think not. Many things have been accepted and practiced in the world, and many of them have become illegal. Not too long ago a teenager could drink whenever he wanted. Now we have laws to regulate the drinking age. This is the same type of thing, something terrible has going on for too long now. We need to put a stop to the killings with a law.
Just because something has been allowed and occurring for a long time doesnmean that it's O.K. .
Also, there is the issue of living wills. A living will is a document that protects the right of choice in end of life matters for patients. And not everyone has a living will when they become ill even though they don't want to live through the agony and pain. They just don't think to make one or plan on being ill and incompetent. But with or without a living will it's just not right to end a life, even if it's one's own. Many think that they should be able to decide on their own, but what about their families. The family will spend the rest of their lives wondering in agony and pain about whether or not a cure would have been found or if the patient would have made it out of the coma. It wouldnbe right to spread the pain by adding to the fire. But some say, why waste the money and extend the pain and agony by keeping someone on a machine? We need to look at life in a more positive way. We need to weigh the matters evenly.
