One solution of this issue can be that the closest most guardians is given the permission and right to take the decision about the life of the patient who is not able to communicate or express his wish. The guardian who should be responsible to take this decision should be the one who will be having direct impact of the death of the patient.
Community & Health Care Resolution
Different communities have varied opinions in regard to right to die for geriatric. Although few of the countries have legalized this matter and have given the right to patient to decide whether he wanted to live more or not, but still there are campaigns in those countries that do not support the way patients should be given death and is also considered another way of committing suicide. Communities think if the right is legalized it will give doctors the right do anything and will let them stand in the position of God deciding for the future of the patient himself whether they should live or not. Although this issue seems to be easy in the case when patient shows his willing to die because of his pain and suffering and no chances of survival (Kenny, 2007). However at the same time the issue is complicated when there is no significant chances that shows the patient will to die or wanted to quit his life when he is not in the state of consciousness (Lemiengre, 2008).
Though for health care specialists this issue seems to be simple as they believe the person's life should not be prolonged when there are no chances of survival for more than six months and moreover it is an act of sympathy by releasing the patient from prolonged pain and suffering. However at the same time it is the belief of most of the health specialists that if the right is granted to the doctors then it might be difficult for them to do justice with their profession as this might happen that doctor's decision would be conflicting in majority situations (Meijler, 2005).
The solution to this medical and community issue is that the right of deciding about the dead of such patients should rest with the patient or is he is not able to communicate then his guardian, as people can raise questions on the decisions taken by the doctors and this can result in conflicts and issues.
Conclusion
Various ethical propositions proponent to the idea of right-to die embrace diverse values such as patient autonomy, death with dignity. These values propose that as a person is free to live, he should be given right to die free as well, according to his own will, to avoid pain and sufferings if he is wrestling with death. But various religious values denote the idea of free will to die as playing with God, and hence consider it strictly inhuman or unethical and mortal. Although this issue is being debated over a long period but still this issue remains unresolved since there is no right dimension to prove whether giving the right to die to extremely ill person is appropriate or not. From the literature reviews that we did and from opinions from people of different background this issue remains unclear since all people have different opinions about this issue and nobody is certain that whether it should be legalized or not. Though in few of the countries the right has been given to certain extent but still the practice is not valid...
On the other hand such laws should exempt those peoples who have religious conflicts with the topic under discussion. Moreover the right of the decision should be with the patient or with the guardians of the patient if he is not able to communicate and the decision should not be taken by the doctors as this will lead to several other issues and problems.
Reference
Gastmans C. & Lemiengre. J. (2007). Development and communication of written ethics policies on euthanasia in Catholic hospitals and nursing homes in Belgium (Flanders), Centre for Biomedical Ethics and Law, Faculty of Medicine, Catholic University of Leuven, Belgium. Vol 63, Issue 1. pp 188 to 195, retrieved March 16, 2011 from http://web.ebscohost.com/ehost/detail?sid=06716113-81ca-4db0-a772-51ae3b6dd9ca%40sessionmgr15&vid=1&hid=19&bdata=JnNpdGU9ZWhvc3QtbGl2ZQ%3d%3d#db=rzh&an=2009306329
Kenny, R.W. (2007). An effect of communication on medical decision making: answerability, and the medically induced death of Paul Mills., Department of Public Relations, Mount Saint Vincent University. Vol 22, issue 1, pp. 69 -- 78, retrieved March 16, 2011 from http://web.ebscohost.com/ehost/detail?sid=c57afac0-3522-4bc8-8c8e-a0a7732261ee%40sessionmgr15&vid=1&hid=19&bdata=JnNpdGU9ZWhvc3QtbGl2ZQ%3d%3d#db=rzh&an=2009640106
Lemiengre K. (2008). How do hospitals deal with euthanasia requests in Flanders (Belgium)? A content analysis of policy documents. Health Promotion/Education, retrieved March 16, 2011 from http://web.ebscohost.com/ehost/detail?sid=37d04412-5a09-4727-92f0-398ccb54533a%40sessionmgr13&vid=1&hid=19&bdata=JnNpdGU9ZWhvc3QtbGl2ZQ%3d%3d#db=rzh&an=2009908744
Levett, C. (2011). Dying with dignity -- the case for end of life choices, Australian Nursing Journal, vol. 18, issue 8, pp. 48, retrieved March 16, 2011 from http://web.ebscohost.com/ehost/detail?sid=078d26de-de1f-4206-80ba-d37b9a51f264%40sessionmgr14&vid=1&hid=19&bdata=JnNpdGU9ZWhvc3QtbGl2ZQ%3d%3d#db=rzh&an=2010954963
Meijler, W.J. (2005). Educational needs of general practitioners in palliative care: outcome of a focus group study, Journal of Cancer Education, vol. 20, issue 1. pp. 28 -- 33, retrieved March 16, 2011 from http://web.ebscohost.com/ehost/detail?sid=95ec9673-92ac-4065-be22-3a47e69014ed%40sessionmgr11&vid=1&hid=19&bdata=JnNpdGU9ZWhvc3QtbGl2ZQ%3d%3d#db=rzh&an=2009190044
Rurup, M.L. & Pasman, H.R. (2006). Attitudes of physicians, nurses and relatives towards end-of-life decisions concerning nursing home patients with dementia, Institute for Research in Extramural Medicine, Department of Public and Occupational Health. Vol 61, issue 3, pp. 372 -- 380, retrieved March 16, 2011 from http://web.ebscohost.com/ehost/detail?sid=0c17f7e8-d9ea-47a6-874c-bfe88dad5295%40sessionmgr11&vid=1&hid=19&bdata=JnNpdGU9ZWhvc3QtbGl2ZQ%3d%3d#db=rzh&an=2009212042
