Voluntary euthanasia has been a very polemic topic whether people agree or disagree with such action. According to Begley’s article killing is necessarily vicious in all circumstances; however, he defends the voluntary active euthanasia. In his text, he explains the case of Dr. Cox who gave his patient, that was terminate ill, conventional drugs to end his life. In this case the patient’s death was consensual because she was in pain. Mrs. Boyes had asked Dr Cox to help end her life several times until decided to help her to alleviate he pain by help her dye. By that time this case had controversial arguments because a doctor is supposed to give life and not death. However, in this case he had to put apart the ethics he have learning as a doctor for a patients wish. According to Begley, in this case there was no hope that Mrs .Boyles would recover for her illness. (Off course, killing is not morally right, but there are circumstances, such as the Mrs. Boyles that it may be needed.)On the other hand this case disseminated that so there was a professional dilemma between duty and compassion. It was a huge controversy between compassion, ethics and morality.
Countries such UK have another form of euthanasia, the non-voluntary passive euthanasia. Sayers mentions the case of Anthony Bland, a man who suffered from injuries and stopped breathing. His brain was deprived of oxygen, and it took him to a persistent vegetative state. He was neither dead nor dying because his brain was still working. His parents and doctor Jim Howe decided to stop assistant feeding and all the treatment, so he would die. This article is a good resource for the antithesis because it shows an opposite side of the voluntary euthanasia. Is there any guilty for a