Therefore, euthanasia fosters benefit or the health of sick patients. Undeniably, in case of certain people the mere knowledge that there is a probability of having euthanasia or PAS might be psychological advantageous, although they might ultimately in no way apply these interferences. Subsequently, supporters contend that euthanasia is ethically inseparable from the acknowledged customs keeping and taking out life-giving care.

This is because of the fact that the ultimate outcome, the passing away of the patient, is identical in either of the scenario and since there is no ethical variance between the acts of omission and acts of commission. Looked from an ethical perspective, there lies no disparity between just allowing nature follow its rules and keenly taking the life of a patient when the patient willfully and with full knowledge desires that his or her life be put to an end. It is also contended that the undesirable real outcome or making euthanasia legal or PAS are very tentative and imaginary to find out whether to allow euthanasia of PAS. Certainly, allowing euthanasia or PAS must improve doctor-patient bonding, as it implies doctors will extend whatever treatment, including euthanasia or PAS, which is required for patients on the verge of death. (Assisted Suicide and Euthanasia) Seemingly, one of the foremost vital progresses in recent years is the heightened importance attached on health-care providers to control expenses. In the background of such circumstances, euthanasia indeed could come to be a method of restricting expenses. (Arguments against Euthanasia)

Prominent economists like Jacques Attali, the former president of the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development, uttered, after attaining the age of 60 to 65 years of age man needs more to live than his capability to produce, and he is a burden to the society in terms of money. Against this background euthanasia is regarded as one of the most crucial tool of the future generations. (Euthanasia: Christian Medical Fellowship) Most with severe disabilities attempt to dissuade from passing on the costs of expensive medical care to their family and loves ones. Not withstanding the case of a financial burden, they prefer death as an economically viable way out to the medical care that may not develop their quality of life but can prolong it. In addition to pain and suffering this is the second major reason why people prefer death in these circumstances. (Euthanasia: The Disability Perspective on the Right to Die Movement)

There prevail several advantages in this regard that may follow the legalization of euthanasia, as proposed by Brock. The right of the patient to self-determination and pursuit of well-being will be honored. It will benefit a much larger group. The survey results have entailed that the majority of the public safeguards the right of an individual to attain euthanasia. Thus legalizing it would foster people that it is available if they ever desire it and would entail them a broader sense of regulation over their lives and process of dying. Moreover, expressing pity to the ailing patient is next consideration. The patients those are not getting the life sustaining treatments, 'pulling the plug' is not the alternative. In this jargon the active euthanasia may be the only delivery from the otherwise agonizing and tortuous process of dying. In several cases the patient could be extended pain medication to alleviate the suffering and as a result make the euthanasia needless. (Brock: Voluntary Active Euthanasia)

Moreover, the cost of sedating them is such that they are not able to interact with people and the environment. In an environment like this the individual is perceived to be dead. Definitely, the life is more than the simple continuation of metabolic processes. Again, since the death is taken for granted once, it is considered justified to put an end to the life sooner, peacefully and with the least possible pain. (Brock: Voluntary Active Euthanasia) The supporters of Euthanasia consider that this will normalize practices those are going on surreptitiously. According to Dr. Colabawala, many doctors have executed it but none will depict it frankly due to the prevailing laws. As done presently, the act is performed in utmost secrecy nobody has any scope to aware of the motives behind its perpetration. There is no liability since it is simply not admitted. Legalizing the experience could assist in depicting the circumstances thus enable close monitoring. (The right to a dignified death - need for debate)

4. Case against

There prevails no transparent and unequivocal ways of reorganization of the groups. The ultimate means with legalization has the practice of continuing to be the first option; not essentially, killing is contagious but since the concept of life-not-worth-living is prone to several interpretations. (Brock: Voluntary Active Euthanasia) Hence, the basic argument against euthanasia circles around the slippery-slope effect. The theory depicts that physicians and policy-makers will have problems in demarcating the line between acceptable and unacceptable euthanasia. At least three categories of physician-assisted suicide already prevail there. On the basis of the slippery-slope effect, law formulators advocate that no policy would be capable of effectively administering the scope of the right to die. (Right to die: The opponents of the Euthanasia advocated that the difficulties behind voluntary euthanasia are that it is biblically erroneous. (Moreno, 2005)

It has been opined that to put one self to end or to force someone else to do it for us, is to defy God and the right of God over our lives and his right to choose the longevity of our lives and the mode of death. (Arguments against Euthanasia: Euthanasia is against the word and will of God) Life is the primary and irreplaceable environment for the continuance of all human values and we have a liability to nurture, regard and foster the integrity of life instead of doing harm or destroying it. (Complete Book of Everyday Christianity) Another opposition put forth is that it infringes the morals and values in the medical settings. The Hippocratic Oath that the doctors are obliged to uphold is in violation by resorting to doctor-assisted suicide. (Moreno, 2005) It has been advocated that sanctioning the intentional killing of humans primarily weakens the basis of law and public morality. No strategy of protection seems to ever be foolproof. Therefore in practice authorizing 'voluntary euthanasia' would give rise to authorization for involuntary euthanasia.

Authorization for voluntary euthanasia based on excruciation of hard cases gives rise to its widespread practice on a large scale. It has further been advocated that authorization would generate huge social pressures on very susceptible people to volunteer, resulting in much pressure and ailment. It would weaken the funding and provision of suitable geriatric and palliative care: with expended budgets euthanasia is being visualized as a cost-effective alternative. Actually, it seems to be very cost effective. It would also weaken the funding of research into such areas. It would basically weaken the linkage between elderly or dependent relations and their families, with overwhelming pressures being applied on people to purse the honorable mode and not be a burden. It would also basically weaken the basis of trust between doctors and patients that is at the heart of effective medicine. (Non-Religious Arguments against Voluntary Euthanasia)

The opponents allege that the autonomy does not validate euthanasia or PAS. Autonomy does not imply a person is required to be allowed to do as he or she wishes. On such criterion, we do not allow the voluntary combat or voluntary enslavement. Additionally, even when a person desires to commit suicide it another concern entirely to allow others to assist having an authority to commit suicide does not mean a power to make others participate. Secondly, the advantages entailed may not justify euthanasia or PAS. Many terminally ill patients practice inadequately related pain, fatigue, and depression. If we treat such symptoms sufficiently, few people would have acute pain and suffering that would justify euthanasia or PAS. Thirdly it is advocated that there is an ethical differentiation between acts of omission and acts of commission. (Voluntary Euthanasia: Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

Evaluating the ethics of an act not only based on its ultimate result, but we are also required to assess the consequences that were generated and the intention of the actors. We acknowledge in the law of murder differences between cases in that a person was killed by mistake and cases in which the murder was preplanned. Accordingly, there is a distinction between barring a medical treatment and allowing a patient to die and knowingly and actively injecting the patient with a medication to result in his or her death. Opponents point out a diversity of adverse outcomes that might stem from authorizing euthanasia or PAS, incorporating intrusion of the courts into ending care decisions, coercion of critically ill patients to resort to euthanasia or…