Another argument against euthanasia is based on the possibility of financial motivations entering into the decision of whether a person should live or die. These critics note that medical science has made dramatic gains in its ability to sustain or save lives, but that these medical interventions are often extremely expensive. One author notes the "the cold-hearted economists intoning the statistics of an ageing and sickly population" (Almond, 1996). However, that writer does not provide any evidence that any credible economists have argued that the old and sick should die as a cost-control measure. The author of the comment lives in Great Britain, a country with socialized medicine for all citizens, so In theory, economics might creep into discussions regarding euthanasia. However, that argument ignores the fact that it is doctors, patients and/or their families who consider euthanasia in individual cases. However, the United States has a modified form of socialized medicine for the elderly in the form of Medicare, and people are routinely given extensive medical care in this country without regard to their ability to pay, so in reality, the United States has similar economic concerns regarding medical care. In spite of this, neither British Parliament nor any governmental body in the United States has proposed requiring euthanasia as a cost-cutting measure. The argument that if individual choices for euthanasia are allowed, the government will then begin euthanasia as a cost-control measure is little more than hyperbole.

The issue of euthanasia is one of real concern for society as a whole, but critics need to consider what society's role in this issue should be. Euthanasia should neither be banned nor supported by society based on religious beliefs in the United States because our governmental agencies are required by the Constitution to ignore religion when passing laws. It does not seem rational to believe that private, personal choice to participate in euthanasia, either as patient or doctor, will lead to the government practice of euthanasia, because the American public is unlikely to give the government such powers. The limits of medical knowledge represent a more serious concern, because People die when they were expected to live and live when they were expected to die. Medical science cannot yet guarantee that a person is going to die, or that a person w

Some common words found in the essay are:
United Constitution, Steve Reeves, Third Reich's, Supreme Court, South Africa, , British Parliament, Death Dignity, Attorney General's, Hitler's Germany, issue euthanasia, euthanasia based, medical care, almond 1996, medical science, based religious, supreme court, religious beliefs, based religious beliefs, socialized medicine, death life, religious beliefs united, choose death life, scenario unfold democratic,
Approximate Word count = 1607
Approximate Pages = 6 (250 words per page double spaced)