This phrase alone supports the very battle cry of those who oppose euthanasia. Their efforts have gone as far as to help make laws forbidding doctor-assisted suicide, including strict procedures for medical staff to determine the competency of an ill patient. But then there are those who wish to "make it easier on themselves" and even the family and friends, and choose as alternative route the their suffering. Extremely difficult problems arise surrounding the issue of euthanasia: What is the difference between killing someone and letting someone die? Who determines the competency of a terminally ill patient? If a patient is incompetent, who then makes the decisions for him? Most importantly, do we even have the right to die? The question of whether this is a moral battle or a legal battle has yet to be determined. Ever though the issue of suicide may consist of both factors, if one commits suicide successfully, they "live" neither with the moral guilt nor the face the legal consequences. So then if a second party is involved, it changes the whole story.

What is the difference between killing someone a

Two recent high decisions mark a turning point. The New York Court of Appeals in Westchester County on Behalf of Mary O'Connor v. Hall and the Missouri Supreme Court in the Cruzon case, both reversed lower court decisions that authorized the withholding of artificially administered nutrition and hydration from incompetent patients. In each case, the patient's family wished the treatment withheld, believing that course would be what the patient would want. In each case, the trial court accepted the evidence as supporting the family's belief, and establishing that this would be what the patient wished. In each case, that state high court disagreed.

Since the landmark case of Karen Ann Quinlan in 1976, courts in some 26 American jurisdictions have authorized the refusal of treatment in circumstances where that refusal would most likely result in the patient's death. Many believe that the rules in this area of law had become relatively clear, although, of course, their application in particular cases necessarily involve hard and tragic decisions.

The issue is as whether it is appropriate for the courts and guardians in the exercise of state-delegated, parens patriae, power, to take into account the burden to the individual of the treatment at issue when the individual is so disabled to make these decisions. Again, this is more likely to stay at a state level, and since it does, that state have reserved powers to help make laws and decisions to help give us a right to die, that is not explicitly covered in the Constitution. Sad enough, individuals seeking their right ti die are forced to do so through a long and cumbersome judicial process. In some instances, a favorable judgement is not reached until long after the individual's death. (Sloan,13)

Some common words found in the essay are:
, Barnet Bedau, Supreme Court, Court Cruzon, Phil Donahue, Joe's CJ, Hippocratic Oath, Ann Quinlan, Constitution Sad, Blue Code, ill patient, supreme court, stopped breathing, barnet bedau, letting die, passive euthanasia, difference killing letting, difference killing, barbara huttman, determines competency, issue euthanasia, inherit money happen, treatment supreme court, money happen three-year-old, refuse treatment supreme,
Approximate Word count = 1787
Approximate Pages = 7 (250 words per page double spaced)