Its a normal belief that Life is a gift from God and not the work of our hands.

It is very valuable, short, and should be nourished and cherished. In such a case where we cannot give life to someone can taking someones life even if its out of mercy be justified? Euthanasia or mercy killing or putting to sleep terminally ill patients has been raging for decades; and probably will never reach a definitive conclusion. It is used as an omnibus term to signify a painless death. In its modern context, the term is used a deliberate euphemism to reduce the culpability of an act". an act which is a subset of murder, by injecting the term "mercy". The fact remains" Euthanasia/ Mercy killing is about giving license for the right to kill.

In some circumstances, of course, the answer is a straightforward and abhorrent no. Examples are Hitlers experiments to create a master race; and the ongoing practice in North Korea, where unsuitable infants are murdered with state sanction. But what happens when the circumstances are not that straightforward Consider another case, the case of Charlotte Wyatt, born three months prematurely, weighing one pound and with severe brain and lung damage. Doctors wanted to switch off her life support machine but her parents fought to keep her alive. Charlotte has confounded medical opinion and is now three years old. However, she is severely disabled and needs constant medical care. Which brings us back to that most fundamental question: Do we humans have the right to take the life of another human being under any circumstances? I am excluding legal executions for the moment, although there is a growing view that even these are ethically and morally indefensible. . In the case of Charlotte Wyatt, some may argue that yes, technically, she is alive but is she really living. Wouldnt putting her to sleep peacefully be a merciful release, both for her and her parents who have to continually suffer her

anguish? To this Id like to re-iterate the precious words of Thomas Jefferson "The care of human life and happiness and not their destruction is the first and only legitimate object of good governance." At last Id only like to say there have been views propagating the practice of passive euthanasia (letting some one die) to be morally permissible and active euthanasia (killing someone), morally impermissible. It is submitted that these distinctions are irrelevant and unnecessary as both acts inevitably center around a single element- an intention to kill.