Advocates of euthanasia argue that it prevents terminally-ill patients from pointlessly suffering and that it lets them die with dignity. For instance, Ken explains to the judge that he doesn't want to continue living such a degrading life where he can't even "urinate for himself" and has to be rolled over by nurses so he does not "rot away from bedsores".

It is also argued that we have no right to prevent people doing anything that does not harm others in a free society. Therefore, we should legalise euthanasia. Ken is a good example of this. He is pre

The law is obliged to ban acts that are grossly immoral, and therefore we should not allow euthanasia.

Clark, Brian; "Whose Life Is It Anyway?", published by Samuel French.

To summarise, the arguments for and against euthanasia are fairly clear if we are objective. However, I am subjective and on the basis that that a large majority of terminations are comfortably decided by our present system there is no need to legalise euthanasia. To do this will open the right to a "good death" to the vagaries of theologians, legislators, medical practicioners, etc. who may be divorced from the realities of lying in a bed of pain, excreta and debasement!

The advantages of avoiding suffering and preserving dignity are negated by the evil of taking a human's life.

The final argument is that since the law already allows the removal of treatment or the administration of high doses of painkillers, hastening the patient's term

Some common words found in the essay are:
Dr Barr, Euthanasia Voluntary, Human Life, Dr Scott, Catholic Church, Barry Euthanasia-is, Life Anyway, instance ken, rational decision, dr barr, law allows, legalise euthanasia, human life, arguments euthanasia,
Approximate Word count = 620
Approximate Pages = 2 (250 words per page double spaced)