Active euthanasia, the right to commit suicide with the help of doctors

I was not debating your use of the word. I was actually confused because the three times it was used, 1 use of it fit, while the others did not. I really did not know what you were trying to say until I substituted another word. I was not being disrespectful in any way. I needed clarification. I apologize since you had taken it as criticism for I had not meant it in that respect. I completely understand you are debating active euthanasia. Pain medication is used as an active euthanasia agent at times as I had explained in my last two rounds. It is also legal in Oregon. "On October 27, 1997 physician-assisted suicide became a legal medical option for terminally ill Oregonians. The Oregon Death with Dignity Act requires that the Oregon Health Division (OHD) monitor compliance with the law, collect information about the patients and physicians who participate in legal physician-assisted suicide, ..." One of the methods listed here is physician assisted using pain meds, which covers active euthanasia: https://public.health.oregon.gov... The other references, as indicated in the body of the 1st round, are regarding pain medication that is in the amount to relieve pain, but that amount of the drug in most likelihood, will kill the patient. In essence, it is an act of active euthanasia that could pose all the problems I had indicated in my first two rounds. Doctors are not necessarily held liable because it is very hard to prove in court and the patient and family are in agreement to initially suggest the potential overdose of pain medication so as to relieve the pain. That's where the ethics problems come in for them addressed in that 1st round. I am surprised that you seem puzzled if I am pro or con on this issue with all the evidence I have given regarding the negative aspects of euthanasia. I did not, & do not feel I should have to plead an emotional case here. I have given substantial documented reasons that euthanasia is not the course to follow by respected doctors & publications. It is incumbent upon the 2 of us to prove our case to the audience as to the positive & negative aspects of euthanasia. What I personally think on the issue is reflected with the research material I have presented, which reports no lasting positive outcomes have been noted. Yes, I do acknowledge that with death, the pain is relieved from the patient. That is a given. Although, during their last days "patients are denied final stage of growth. Those involved in hospice work often see healing of family relationships and rediscovery of mutual love. Words are spoken that help sustain those left behind". (The Life Resources Charitable Trust 2011). And following an active euthanasia, legal or with enough pain medications to relieve the pain but kill the patient, which is questionably legal, there is the ethics dilemma and " A person's decision to end their life can have profound, often lifelong effects on the lives of others. And with family there may be guilt, anger and bitterness felt by those left behind." (The Life Resources Charitable Trust 2011). I had also given many other reasons that euthanasia is not the right choice in the 1st & 2nd round that I would list, but that would be redundant & therefore a waste of space. "Kevin Fitzpatrick of Not Dead Yet, an organization for disabled people opposed to legalizing assisted suicide, noted perceptively, death is the end of all the possibilities of life. To be dead is more disabling than any injury or disease. Fitzpatrick remarks that "[w]e have lost our sense of "terrible beauty"", whereby even in the depths of suffering and horror "there can still be something there for us to find profound, even beautiful". Suicide is disturbing because it cuts short the possibility for human interaction, for participation in one another's [sic] lives". www.spiked-online.com/newsite/article/why...wrong...