Euthanasia had been initially accepted in the history. Greece and Romans permitted it in certain circumstances. However, with the arrival of religions like

Objection - 4. This objection is to the argument of granting legal status to euthanasia. The opponents propagate the theory of 'slippery slope' in case the euthanasia is legally permitted in any form. The objection states that if we accept or legalize any form of euthanasia that will put us on slipper slope and eventually we will fall in embracing the euthanasia in its totality. Slippery slope arguments encompass logical, psychological and arbitrary line. These different forms share a counter argument that when the first step is taken on a slippery slope the subsequent steps follow inevitably, whether for logical reasons, psychological reasons or to avoid unpredictability in a person's actions. (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

Response to Objection - 2. The opponents counter argument against autonomy and self determination is provocative and self generated. It is true that a person may decide something out of desperation but there is always a cooling time suggested in taking a person's consent. Moreover, it advocates that if someone discusses the issue with others on several different occasions then definitely his or her wish is enduring. In addition, a person's living will can be given preference if that was written much before and in perfect state of mind. Therefore, the counter argument against a person's right to decide for himself is baseless.

Euthanasia is still much debated. Passive form of euthanasia though has been embraced by few countries but question about validity of active euthanasia remains unanswered. People favoring the proposal generally advocate right of self determination and the principle of mercy as the major driving forces towards deciding on euthanasia. Whereas the other school of thought rejects the idea of autonomy since according to them a person undergoing serious physical and mental stress is not competent enough to decide about his life or death. It has been established that people opposing the concept are over-whelmed by religious perspective rather than the principle of reality. The fact remains that with-holding life-sustaining treatment or administering a lethal injection are the same since both result in causing death. The case for active euthanasia in special circumstances under strict laws may be the possible solution to end this long-standing dispute.

Some arbiters may prefer morality over reality. But at the same time, facts can not be totally ignored. Normal rules for morality are tested hard in such extreme scenarios, where deliberate ending of the life of a human being is decided. History reveals that killing a human is not always and essentially regarded as sin. It mostly depends on the situation. As far as euthanasia is concerned, there is a school of thought that supports its arguments in favor of both forms of euthanasia i.e., active and passive. To assess and analyze the true perspective of its proponents, few major arguments in its favor are highlighted below:

Argument - 3 (Doctrine of Double Effect). This argument advocates that passive euthanasia which implies that withdrawing extra ordinary medical care to keep a person alive is more or less similar in nature to active euthanasia. Proponents went on to declare that no substantive ethical distinction persists between active euthana

Some common words found in the essay are:
Philosophy Objection, Response Objection, Double Effect, CONCLUSION Euthanasia, Greek Euthanasia, Suffering Life, SUPPORT EUTHANASIA, Msn Encarta, Self Determination, Legitimacy Euthanasia, active euthanasia, doctrine double, doctrine double effect, pain suffering, double effect, counter argument, passive euthanasia, person's life, self determination, passive form, response objection, stanford encyclopedia philosophy, double effect argument, granting legal status, passive euthanasia implies,
Approximate Word count = 2206
Approximate Pages = 9 (250 words per page double spaced)