In the article Active and Passive Euthanasia by Rachels, the author identified the conventional doctrine on the morality of euthanasia. This doctrine allows passive euthanasia but does not allow active euthanasia. Basically this is saying that it is alright to let someone die if that is what is eventually going to happen anyway, but it is not alright to do something to help someone die. And this is the way that it should be. No one should be allowed to decide whether someone else is going to die or not. Death is a natural occurrence and should be left that way. This same sentiment was also made by Callahan in the article Killing and Allowing to Die. This author maintains that there is a valid distinction between killing and allowing dying, and he defends the distinction by reference to three overlapping perspectives, metaphysical, moral and medical. According to the fourteenth...

If the court had ruled that the State of Missouri did not need clear and convincing evidence of Cruzan's wishes then this would have lead to the potential of many people being deprived of life at the hands of others. People should be able to express their own wishes on their end of life and have these wishes abided by. This is a basic human right and one that should be forever upheld. There are enough people out in the world taking people's lives against their will; do we really need to make legal for someone to do it? I think not.
Works Cited

Callahan, Daniel. Killing and Allowing to Die.

"Courts and the End of Life - The Case of Nancy Cruzan." 2011. Web. 16 July 2011.

Rachels, James. Active and Passive Euthanasia