The applied moral question of euthanasia, or mercy killing, concerns whether it is morally acceptable for a third party, such as a doctor, to end the life of a terminally ill patient in intense pain. I will delve into this further in my article. The controversy over euthanasia is part of a larger issue regarding the right to die. Convinced defenders of personal liberty argue that we all have the moral right to end our lives when we see fit. So, according to these people, suicide is in principle morally permissible. For healthcare workers, the issue of the right to die is more important when a patient in their care is terminally ill, is in intense pain, and voluntarily chooses to end his or her life to escape prolonged suffering. In these cases there are several theoretical options available to the healthcare professional. First, the provider can ignore the patient's request and treatment can continue as normal. Second, the provider may stop providing life-sustaining care to the patient, thus allowing the patient to die more quickly. This option is called passive euthanasia because it causes death due to non-intervention. Third, the healthcare provider may provide the patient with the means to take their own life, such as a lethal dose of a drug. This practice is called assisted suicide, since it is the patient, and not technically the healthcare provider, who administers the drug. Finally, the healthcare provider can take active measures to end the patient's life, for example by directly administering a lethal dose of a drug. This practice is called active euthanasia because the action of the healthcare provider is the direct cause of the patient's death. Active euthanasia is the most controversial of the four options and is currently illegal in the United States. However, several right-to-die organizations are lobbying for laws against active euthanasia to change. Two further concepts are relevant to the discussion of euthanasia. First, voluntary euthanasia refers to mercy killing that occurs with the patient's explicit and voluntary consent, either verbally or in a written document such as a living will. Second, non-voluntary euthanasia refers to the merciful killing of a patient who is unconscious or otherwise incapable of making his or her intentions explicitly known. In these cases it is often family members who make the request. This would be done against the grain of the charter and not enough about other intrinsic goods, such as justice and rights. Accordingly, Rachels offers a revised utilitarian version: active euthanasia is permitted because it promotes everyone's interests (such as Jack, Jack's wife, and the hospital staff). Rachels also argues that the Golden Rule supports active euthanasia to the extent that we would want others to put us out of our misery if we were in a situation like Jack's. The categorical imperative supports active euthanasia because no one would voluntarily universalize a norm that condemns people to unbearable pain before death. Rachels closes by noting an irony: The Golden Rule supports active euthanasia, yet the Catholic Church has traditionally opposed it. My thoughts on euthanasia are simply that I believe that for people who suffer a lot or suffer unbearably and have no chance of recovery, they can choose whether to continue living or die. I know if I were in that situation I would like to know I had the choice. In situations where the patient is unconscious or unable to make a decision,.