liberty, the number of countries allow competent adults to refuse any med ical treatment is soaring, even if such treatment is life-saving. If the doctors impose treatment against their wills they are committing the crime of violation of body integrity, as the term called" battery. Here some people may argue that it is weird to let them die with blind respect they might survive if they insist to receive medical treatments. However, it seems they just forget about the other side of the coin. Nobody could be extremely certain about what's going on in the next and what the outcome of the decision is. Our world pervades with uncertainty which if we take it as dominant factor, uncertainty may paralyze our life structure. At least, the mercy killing would not bring more pain to patients than let them alone suffering the great pain of illnes The third reason is that mercy kill ing is not wrong in principle. What makes killing wrong is not killing itself. The opponents may hold the opinion that ki lling is morally wrong and cannot tell the difference of killings out of diverse reasons. they stick to the resistance of euthanasia based on the resistance of killing i deeply admire their spontaneous sympathy on those killed. For most people it is true that they should not be killed. but the reason why killing is normally a great disaster is that dying is normally a great harm the harm of dying makes the harm of kill ing Here in these situations we face, dying is in the best interests of a patient rather than watch them ffering from an extended and aching dying i believe no one would cherish his or her life more than himself or herself. Thus, when death is a benefit not a detriment to the patient killing is not a wrong thing a crime For all the reasons I have listed here, I support the view that euthanasia, whether passive or voluntarily active is a legitimate act We have to bear in mind that it is the damage of dying that makes killing an immoral crime. Every sympathetic people appreciate flexible moral principles which are made out of concern for human. As Tony Hope said, it is perverse to seek sense of moral purity when this is gained at the expense of the suffering of others Good job. You get to know how to make your arguments convincing. What I really appreciate your writing is that you learn how to set up a target for argument and then put forward your own evidences to refute the different opinions Grade:Aliberty, the number of countries allow competent adults to refuse any medical treatment is soaring, even if such treatment is life-saving. If the doctors impose treatment against their wills, they are committing the crime of violation of body integrity, as the term called “battery”. Here some people may argue that it is weird to let them die with blind respect. They might survive if they insist to receive medical treatments. However, it seems they just forget about the other side of the coin. Nobody could be extremely certain about what’s going on in the next and what the outcome of the decision is. Our world pervades with uncertainty, which if we take it as a dominant factor, uncertainty may paralyze our life structure. At least, the mercy killing would not bring more pain to patients than let them alone suffering the great pain of illness. The third reason is that mercy killing is not wrong in principle. What makes killing wrong is not killing itself. The opponents may hold the opinion that killing is morally wrong and cannot tell the difference of killings out of diverse reasons. They stick to the resistance of euthanasia based on the resistance of killing. I deeply admire their spontaneous sympathy on those killed. For most people it is true that they should not be killed. But the reason why killing is normally a great disaster is that dying is normally a great harm. The harm of dying makes the harm of killing. Here in these situations we face, dying is in the best interests of a patient rather than watch them suffering from an extended and aching dying. I believe no one would cherish his or her life more than himself or herself. Thus, when death is a benefit not a detriment to the patient, killing is not a wrong thing, a crime. For all the reasons I have listed here, I support the view that euthanasia, whether passive or voluntarily active is a legitimate act. We have to bear in mind that it is the damage of dying that makes killing an immoral crime. Every sympathetic people appreciate flexible moral principles, which are made out of concern for human. As Tony Hope said, it is perverse to seek a sense of moral purity when this is gained at the expense of the suffering of others. Good job. You get to know how to make your arguments convincing. What I really appreciate your writing is that you learn how to set up a target for argument and then put forward your own evidences to refute the different opinions. Grade: A