When considering whether the piece of legislation entitled “The Death with Dignity Act” is morally and philosophically justifiable, the moral and philosophical feasibility of what is called voluntary active euthanasia must first be assessed. Because voluntary active euthanasia seeks to reduce the amount of suffering patients suffer and give individuals greater control over their lives, it can be justified, and the “Death with Dignity Act” outlines a responsible method for implementing voluntary active euthanasia . The most controversial issue when considering voluntary active euthanasia is the first part of the term: active. According to opponents of voluntary active euthanasia, it is morally worse to actively cause the death of an individual than to let him or her die naturally by refusing treatment. This is a belief supported by the American Medical Association as it only advocates “the cessation of the use of extraordinary measures to prolong the life of the body when there is irrefutable evidence that biological death is imminent.” A decision needs to be made between active and inactive voluntary euthanasia, there is no moral difference. Imagine there is a cancer patient who is beyond any reasonable hope of surviving and is currently experiencing unbearable pain. It would not be a great shock if this person told a doctor that he or she wishes to die. According to the American Medical Association, the only acceptable way for this individual to die is to cease extraordinary treatments to treat him while essentially waiting for him to die. The problem with this decision is that its intent and outcome are exactly the same as if this individual had been given a presc... middle of paper... without negatively interfering with the ability of others to live their lives even freely. However, in cases where a seriously ill person is unable to perform such an act on himself due to a devastating terminal illness, he should have the right to ask a doctor to prescribe a drug that will end the patient's life. To ensure that the request does not affect the doctor's freedoms, the doctor may also reserve the right to refuse such a request and in turn recommend the patient to another doctor. This second part is critical because, although the doctor should have the right to refuse this drug, it can prevent an individual from fulfilling their wishes and therefore has a responsibility to ensure that they do not prevent the patient from being able to fulfill their wishes even if it is not the initial doctor who performs the act.