Due to advances in medical science, situations of excruciating pain with no hope for recovery brought new ideas and debates about a peaceful death – called euthanasia. Euthanasia is an act that results in the earlier death of the patient than would otherwise occur. It is generally an alternative to reduce pain, but in regards to ethical considerations, euthanasia is just an extenuating circumstance for murder. Therefore, the question of its acceptability should be approached with caution.

Debate about euthanasia has been popular since 1975, with the issue of Quinlan. Karen Ann Quinlan was a 21 year old woman, who was in coma for 3 years because of the addiction to alcohol and drug. Quinlan’s father tried his best to save her and did not refused to pay for expensive medicine. However, as the doctor declared her as “practically dead” person, her father wanted to give her an opportunity to die peacefully. Against the demands of her father, doctor refused to disconnect the life support and legal conflict ensued. The courts decided in favor of Quinlan’s father and allowed to take off life support. Against all expectations, however, Quinlan did not die but sustained 9 years longer, as if trying to prove that she is not “practically dead.”

In another case in October 2005, Salvatore Crisafulli emerged from a 2 year coma, claiming that he had retained consciousness throughout his illness and could hear conversation around him. He said that he cried in desperation and darkness when his doctor sentenced him to death. Crisafulli’s situation exemplifies the ultimate loneliness and frustration of comatose patients who cries in darkness.

Today, decisions regarding euthanasia are left in the power of families and hospitals. Unconscious patients are suffering from the cruelty of caregivers while future patients with incurable diseases will be euthanized instead of searching for a cure. Now euthanasia is not about the right to die honorably; rather it is a reluctant burden for the unconscious patient.

An analysis of the issue of euthanasia requires a reexamination of the roles doctors and families play in making such a serious decision. First of all, one must consider whether it is proper for doctors to assist suicide, since their mission is to cure and help patients. Regardless of the patients’ will, doctors are directly or indirectly helping patients commit suicide. They should not be coerced into disconnecting life support and letting a patient die in absolute loneliness. As for patient’s family, they have no right to disregard the patient’s will. In the past, euthanasia was necessarily decided by the will of families, however, families are not equal to patients themselves. It may be easy for a family to let a patient go because of the immense financial burden and uncertainty as to the patient’s possible recovery. But on the other hand, it is not easy or acceptable for a patient to die simply to alleviate monetary problem.

Morally speaking, there is no difference between murder and euthanasia. Whether the self-destruction is committed individually or aided by others, the result is same: death. Although euthanasia is, by definition, “mercy killing”, it is still murder if the patient has no will to die and suicide if the patient shows the desire to die. Therefore, even if there is very little possibility to survival, we should not compromise with the evil desire for an easy exit.

559 words