on the immediate suffering of the individual is a tactic of those in favor of euthanasia which eliminates other practical and larger moral concerns. For example, it ignores the possibility of other ways to relieve suffering without having to take the life of the patient. It also ignores the larger moral problem which follows when and if euthanasia were to become legalized and widely applied. Once the moral line of allowing euthanasia to take place is crossed, it will be difficult to stop the flood of "mercy killings" which will ensue.
Also, there is the problem of differentiating between the two "types" of euthanasia:
. . . By "passive euthanasia," [authors] mean the withdrawal of life supports from patients when such supports are no longer beneficial but harmful (Ashley and O'Rourke 417).
However, such a definition is vague and open to many interpretations, as Ashley and O'Rourke note. Instead, they write,
it is better to avoid such language and to follow the definition used by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith in the Declaration on Euthanasia . . . : "By euthanasia is understood an action or omission of an action which of itself or by intention causes death in order that all suffering may be eliminated" (Ashley and O'Rourke 417).
The same authors eliminate one aspect of this question from the discussion when they note that an omission of an action which does not have to do with the relief of the patient's suffering is not euthanasia (417).
The authors also note that the choice of words is crucial, for to overlook certain choices could result in the inadvertent acceptance of a biased point of view. For example,
Confusion is also caused by the term "death with dignity," since this can beg the question, "What is 'dignity' in death?" Certainly, if mercy killing is murder, to be murdered is not to die with dignity, but to have one's dignity as a human being denied in the most flagrant way (Ashley an...