The question of the permissibility of euthanasia disturbs humanity for quite an extended period. Every living being has an inalienable right to existence, free development, and painless death. However, sometimes due to unforeseen circumstances person loses the ability to make important decisions on her own. It does not matter what exactly caused the loss of consciousness, a long illness or an accident, but it is quite obvious that someone else has to make a choice in this case, for example, a close relative or a treating doctor. That opens a deeply philosophical question: whether it is worth legalizing euthanasia for patients who are in a vegetative state for a long time, and what the consequences will be.
One of the most important rules for society is “do not kill.” This prohibition helped humanity to survive in the struggle for existence that lasted throughout our history. Many legal laws aim at providing an individual with a quiet life and punishing everyone who encroaches on it. Therefore, the problem of the permissibility of euthanasia is ethical and raises a range of controversies, especially in our days, when medicine has reached unbelievable heights. First of all, we should admit that thanks to its development, it became possible to maintain the existence of patients with incurable diseases. The only problem is that this requires significant financial support and not everyone can afford such medical care. However, can a person connected to a variety of apparatuses and not responding to external stimuli be considered as a full-fledged member of society? Another problem is who exactly should finish her life if such decision would be made. Every doctor, for example, admits the importance of the Hippocratic oath and respect its statements, in which it is clearly said that he should not harm the patient in any way and must make an effort to cure him of the disease. It is also difficult for relatives to turn off the patient from the medical apparatuses because of the strength of their feelings. At the same moment, a person may be in a great distress and have no possibility to inform them about it. Thus, this choice is not just between life and death, but between a long and painful existence that will eventually lead to death and its completion.
Summarizing all of the information above, we see that there can not be any universal solution in this case. All people have their own opinion on the question of whether euthanasia is evil or a blessing for an individual who is mortally ill. In any case, active euthanasia, when a doctor gives a patient one lethal injection, is seen as a more humane way of getting rid of suffering than passive when he is simply stopped being treated and left to die in terrible agony. Perhaps a good solution would be to compile a document in which a person, who is still in a sober mind, could indicate how his relatives should act if something bad would happen to him and he can not make hard decisions on his own. This innovation will make the problem of euthanasia not so critical. At least, no one deserves to be left to the mercy of fate, and everyone should have the right to dispose of their lives until the very end.
Jecker, N. S., Jonsen A. R., & Pearlman R. A. (1997). Bioethics : an introduction to the history, methods, and practice. Boston: Jones and Bartlett Publishers.
Vodiga, B. (1974). Euthanasia and the right to die – moral ethical and legal perspectives. The Chicago-Kent Law Review, 51. Retrieved from http://scholarship.kentlaw.iit.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2184&context=cklawreview
 Euthanasia and the right to die – moral ethical and legal perspectives (Vodiga, B., 1974, pp. 25-29).
 Bioethics : an introduction to the history, methods, and practice (Jecker, N. S., Jonsen A. R., & Pearlman R. A., 1997, pp. 77-82).