The case of Terri Schiavo has once again opened the debate against assisted suicide or euthanasia. Contrary to popular misconceptions, the debate about assisted suicide is not about "helping people die a natural death." Many are confused about end-of-life issues, and are unaware of excellent programs and resources like in-home hospice care. As commonly practiced, assisted suicide is killing an individual who is not in immediate danger of death.

Assisted suicide supporters claim it would offer a choice to people who want it. But it would actually victimize minorities and poor people. It is widely believed that there are only two options to patients with terminal illness: either they die slowly in unrelieved suffering or they receive euthanasia. In fact, there is a middle way, that of creative and compassionate caring. Scrupulous research in painkilling medicine has in recent years shown that virtually all unpleasant symptoms experienced in the process of terminal illness can be either relieved or substantially alleviated by techniques already available. Thus, voluntary euthanasia is unnecessary because alternative treatment exist.

Further, voluntary euthanasia denies patients the final stage of growth. It is during the time of a terminal illness that people have a unique opportunity to reflect on the way they have lived their lives, to make amends for wrongs done and to prepare mentally and spiritually for their own death. Death if properly managed can be the final stage of growth. It can also be a time when words are spoken and strength imparted that will help sustain 'those left behind' through the years ahead. Voluntary euthanasia, by artificially shortening life denies these possibilities.

In addition, euthanasia violates historically accepted codes of medical ethics. Traditional medical ethical codes have never sanctioned euthanasia even on request for compassionate motive. When a doctor intentionally and deliberately enables an individual to ends his life, the doctor acts unethically.

Thus, we need to recognize that requests for voluntary euthanasia are extremely rare in situations where the physical, emotional and spiritual needs of terminally ill patients are properly met. While recognizing the importance of individual patient autonomy, history has clearly demonstrated that legalized euthanasia poses serious risks to society as a whole. Patients can be persuaded and exploited, the search for better therapies is compromised and involuntary euthanasia inevitably follows. Legislations allowing voluntary euthanasia should be firmly resisted on the grounds that it sidesteps compassionate care and ultimately undermines rather than protects patient independence.