The family sued her despite the knowledge that they gave authorization for him to undergo the process. They viewed the incidence as an act of deliberate killing, which indicates that the concerns against the process of euthanasia are genuine morally (Diaconescu 22). All these reasons lead to the conclusion that no person has the moral right to take the life of another; neither does any person have the moral right to take their own life. Thus, the case of Paul and Dr. Morrison was too lenient to grant her indictment. Euthanasia has no moral basis; thus, accepting the terms of euthanasia is equivalent of suicide and murder combined for all involved in making decisions and executing them.

Arguments for Euthanasia

Euthanasia continues to be a leading discussion subject among the medical professionals. The moral basis of practice that supports the process includes the following. First, euthanasia does not occur without the consent of the individual responsible for the patient. As is the case with Paul, the family agreed to the process and thus, morally, the aspect of the consent of a person to an action gives them the moral responsibility to execute it (Sneiderman & Raymond 13). Thus, euthanasia does have a moral basis in the consent. Secondly, morally, every person should have a life free of suffering. However, a terminally ill person undergoes lots of suffering and pain. Therefore, it is only moral to aid this terminally ill person from undergoing the suffering and pain, and ensuring quality of life for them. Thus, if terminally ill, the safest and surest way to eliminate the suffering of the person is by the process of euthanasia. Additionally, a terminally ill person causes economic costs on the family. The economic impact of the illness on the family necessitates means to ensure they have a quality life, free of financial constrains. Therefore, conducting euthanasia on the patient reduces the social impacts on the family, which leads to the moral basis of the ability to live a life free of financial strains. Thus, morally, conducting euthanasia helps the family to eliminate unrealistic expenditures while people are not contributing positively to the society (Sneiderman & Raymond 19). Therefore, euthanasia eliminates pain, suffering and debts to the family members. Euthanasia is a necessary process in the society Dr. Nancy Morrison favored Paul when she agreed to facilitate the process, despite knowing the risks involved.


Euthanasia, in view of the Arguments above, presents a case for further evaluation. According to this case, the doctor acted as the family instructed. Legally, the family authorized the process, and thus she is not liable to the consequences. However, it is clear that the process used to end the supposed suffering of the patient did not meet the quality standards expected. The world is changing, and there are new technologies that can aid the process of euthanasia without complicating the situation. The recommendation; therefore is for the hospital policy to establish the legal basis for conducting euthanasia. Additionally, we should explore safe means of conducting the procedure. The moral basis of conducting euthanasia beats that against in my view as it eliminates suffering, financial crisis and other related negative impacts of the illness of the patient on the family.

Works cited

Diaconescu, Amelia Mihaela. "Euthanasia." Contemporary Readings in Law and Social

Justice 4.2 (2012): 474-83. ProQuest.Web. 30 Sep. 2013.

Huxtable, Richard. Euthanasia, Ethics, and the Law: From Conflict to Compromise-Abingdon,

Oxon: Routledge-Cavendish, 2007. Print.

Robb, Nancy. "The Morrison Ruling: The Case may be Closed but the Issues it Raised are

Not." Canadian Medical Association.Journal 158.8 (1998): 1071-2. ProQuest. Web. 30

Sep. 2013.

Sneiderman, Barney, and Raymond Deutscher. "Dr. Nancy Morrison and Her…