Just because beds inhospitals are needed by others is no reason to allow a person to die! Some can be cared for at home, or in special hospices. If we stopped caring for the terminally ill at all where would we draw the line? Is treating the elderly also a waste of resources because they are nearing the end of their lives anyway? I think that to describe palliative care as a "huge and ultimately wasteful drain on medical resources" is rather harsh! I’m not sure that families of the terminally ill would agree with you there.

The patient may be terminally ill but this statement aside from repeating other points discounts the possibility of new treatments being developed in time to cure the illness he or she is facing.

There is a straight answer for this: Suffering is part of the human condition and part of life's experience. Also medication can be improved to help a person's quality of life and make their deaths as humane as possible. Futhermore even if a person is in a state of sedation they are still biologically existing and still have what some would say an obligation to live their life until its natural conclusion.

The right to choose is not something which our legal system has "accepted" we all have. This is far from the truth. Suicide was decriminalised in the UK solely for the reason that it is not a punishable offence – it is of course impossible to punish a dead person. This is by no means a reflection of the general opinion of society.

Even if their relatives may be suffering from watching their loved one's condition detiriorate, they have no right to either decide or put pressure on a person to end their own life because of their own sufffering. Just as it may be the individuals right to die it is also the right of the individuals right to "rage against the dieing of the light" with their support of their family so to speak.

Coma patients are not 'living until thier natural end' because modern medicine has developed so we can support them artificially. Perhaps it was God's will that they die, and we are interefering in this plan by treating them?

A couple of points. Firstly the Oxford English Dictionary defines murder as being the "unlawful premeditated kiling of one person by another". If Euthansia is premedated, if it is legalised than it can not be murder as it does not meet the definition of murder.^[1]

Secondly for describing Euthansia the Germans use the term Sterbehilfe which means "help to die" so while the person and maybe society may be complicit in the "killing of a person" they are accessories and not the actual agents of the killing.

1. ^ Oxford University Press"Ask Oxford : murder" Accessed 1.06.09 http://www.askoxford.com/concise_oed/murder?view=uk

While religious morality may be precise on who sets decides when a person dies secular values also recognise if a person is suffering unncessarilly they should be helped to eliminate that suffering. Futhermore a person may well be non religious and resent the imposition of religious or secular values on them, values which they may not belive in.^[1]

1. ^ Dr Adams "Personal Story- Dignity in Dying" http://www.dignityindying.org.uk/personal-stories/uk/south-west/exeter/dr-adams-story-33.html Accessed 1.06.2009

Whatever their reasons, they should be allowed to do as they see fit. It is their life and they have the right to choose how and when it ends.

Yet, what about the guilt imposed on the relatives afterwards? Although some terminally ill patients elect to die out of guilt for the burden they think they are inflicting on their families, what about the guilt their families would feel when they learn their loved one died to release their family from their obligation to care for them?

I believe that all people have a right to life yet, in some terminally ill cases, euthanasia can be more merciful. However, I do not support the idea that people choose to die solely for the reason stated above. Perhaps euthanasia should be legalised as the pain, suffering and guilt the family carry with them after, and often before, they lose their loved one will haunt them for the rest of their lives. Surely they shouldn't be punished further when their relative clearly asked for their help? This isn't necessarily a voluntary act, it most certainly isn't done maliciously, it is a last act of love to ease a family member's pain and possibly save them from enduring more.

Euthanasia should be legalised to allow a patient the right to not only life but also the right to death (on their terms). If euthanasia was legalised then families could seek medical advice without the fear of incrimination. If it were legalised, the family could seek advice, a doctor could verify that the patient is of sound mind and judgement, they could discuss options and if euthanasia porves to be the best one then the patient can make a full informed decision. This way the patient does not become stressed or elect to committ suicide solely to relieve their family from caring them. The family are then relieved of making such a difficult decision alone and do not experience the extra pain, guilt and suffering that illegal euthanasia would have added to their grief. It would therefore be beneficial to all involved.

Harold Shipman committed his crimes when euthanasia was illegal, which illustrates that psychopaths can commit crimes whatever the legal situation. Legalising euthanasia would have no effect on the 0.000001% of society who do this sort of thing.

In countries where euthanasia is currently legal, such as Switzerland and the Netherlands, strict legal guidelines are in place to ensure that the process does not include such problems. All patients who request euthanasia require the diagnoses of at least two doctors to verify the terminal nature of their illness, and undergo psychological examination by these doctors and often other experts to examine the reasons for their choice. It is not a situation of "Surely it is wrong to give one or two individuals the right to decide whether a patient should live or die?"; it is one of two medical professionals deciding whether the legal parameters allow them to enact the patient’s wishes.

It is worth noting that, at the moment, doctors can effectively use euthanasia anyway. Firstly, under the "doctrine of double effect", a doctor is allowed to give a patient, upon their request, a dose of painkilling medication which as a secondary effect speeds up the death of the patient. Secondly, all patients have both the right to refuse treatment, and the ability to make a "living will", which doctors are compelled to consider if the patient is unable to express their wishes during illness.