Artificial Life or Death Euthanasia has been a hotly debated about topic for the past couple of decades, but has recently been thrust into the limelight by many controversial court and hospital decisions. This usually, but not necessarily, affects people who are are separated from death only by machines. Supporters of euthanasia say that it is such an improbability for a miraculous recovery and a return to a normal life that it is not worth putting the patient through all the suffering and agony that prolonging their life would cause or the fortune of hospital bills that you would pay. The opposition feels that it is not right for people to abandon other members of the human race because there is always a chance, even though it is a small one, that they will regain all functons and return to a normal life. There are many cases in which euthanasia is acceptable.
Brain death is one situation which merits euthanasia.
It is also one of the more common cases where euthanasia is requested. Brain death is when all brain activities cease. The lines are fairly well drawn in the law about patients who are suffering but are still compotent, but when the law is asked to determine the fate of a lingering, comatose, incompotent patient the lines begin to blur. In a second case mentioned in the January 7 issue of Newsweek, a Minnesota Surpreme court turned to three hospital ethics committees to review a dying loner's case, followed their collected wisdom and ordered him off the respirator so that he could have a dignified death. Still the easiest way to know and respect the patient's wishes is through a simple piece of paper called a living will.