The problem of euthanasia – voluntary departure from the life of the terminally ill person, in recent years, has been actively discussed by doctors, lawyers, philosophers. Disputes are about being on the notion of incurability, the possibility of the legal reasoning of “easy death.” In some countries, euthanasia is legally sanctioned, for example, in Holland in 2001, although it was used in this country before, based on case law. Euthanasia is legalized in Australia and some U.S. states. Among patients, there are people who do not recognize euthanasia. It is considered to be a sin for them. With the right to die, people intuitively decide on the advice within themselves to something deeper than religion. Nevertheless, we must recognize that the interruption of life, alone or with the help of doctors, is contrary to one of the basic tenets of Christianity: the more people suffer on earth, the easier it will be in heaven, and to interrupt their suffering – thus doom themselves to beyond the grave flour. But there is another disturbing aspect of euthanasia: the likelihood that the legalization of euthanasia could be used for criminal purposes. For example, the moral pressure on the sick brings them to commit suicide in order to seize the inheritance. There is a difference between active and passive euthanasia, and it is considered a critical issue of medical ethics. In some cases, the treatment can be stopped, and the patient will die their own death because of their incurable disease, but without undertaking any direct action aimed to kill the patient. But still, there are some arguments against this. It I possible to start with a typical situation: a patient who is dying from incurable cancer of the larynx is suffering greatly. It is possible that the patient will die even they to continue the treatment. But he does not want to live these days, since suffering is non-portable and they ask the doctor to stop it, his family subscribes to this request (Moreno, 1995) . It is possible to imagine that doctor agrees to stop treatment, as was mentioned above. Justification is the following reasoning: the patient is in terrible agony and will die in any event, so it would be wrong to prolong their suffering unnecessarily. But the mere cessation of treatment in this situation could prolong the patient’s death, and therefore perhaps they would suffer more than if there was an imminent act of killing by lethal injection. This gives serious grounds to believe that as long as the decision not to prolong the agony of the patient was taken, active euthanasia in this case really is preferable to passive. To say otherwise, it would prefer the choice of more suffering, not less, contrary to the humanist grounds, bringing the decision not to renew their life (Snyder, 2006) . So, in my opinion, to die because of incurable illness is much more difficult and painful than to get an injection which would help to die. There are some examples of this. In the United States, every sixth child has Down syndrome. Most children with this syndrome in otherwise healthy; that is if appropriate pediatric care can be a normal child. Some, along with Down syndrome, have more birth defects, such as for example, bowel obstruction. In these cases, the child survived the required surgery. But sometimes, children die because parents and doctors see no other way out. It is easy to understa