Peoples’ religions and belief systems vary, triggering an array of points of view. What one may see as perfectly normal and in fact the moral thing to do; another might view as sinful and wrong. This concept makes ethical issues prevalent in our society today.
An instance, in which this concept directly applies, is the ethical standpoint on Euthanasia. Euthanasia is a very controversial issue that pulls on the heartstrings of millions of people. Euthanasia is literally translated as “Good Death” in Greek. It is the purposeful killing of a human being who is deadly ill (Euthanasia Definitions).
The three methods of Euthanasia cause a range of levels of controversy. Euthanasia by consent is when a third party (family member, usually a spouse or parent) makes the decision of whether the patient should go through with Euthanasia. The family member typically makes the decision based on what the patient would desire, by religious beliefs, or based upon the raw facts of the patient’s life expectancy and conditions. On the other hand, if the patient is in good enough condition he or she can make the decision for him/herself (Voluntary Euthanasia) (Czepiel Law Lecture). Once the Euthanasia is chosen (either voluntarily or through consent), it is then decided which Euthanasia method: passive, non-aggressive, or aggressive, to be used. Passive method is the most accepted, for it is the “least involved.” The passive method is the withholding of common treatments such as antibiotics, pain medications, surgeries, and other medications that would better the patient for a limited amount of time. This way the doctor isn’t actually killing the patient, he is simply letting nature take its course. The next method (non-aggressive) is considered to be more controversial due to a more direct way of killing the patient. The non-aggressive method requires the withdrawal of life support. Finally there is the aggressive method, which entails the use of lethal substances...