Introduction
Even though medical science has made tremendous progress in this century, giving individuals a better quality of life, it is still possible for an individual to succumb to painful illness and debilitating disease from which death or a very uncomfortable life full of pain is the only conclusion. Even though the patients are alive, their quality of life may be very poor and they can suffer from physical and psychological trauma all the time. Nearly every individual alive will prefer a death, which is the only natural conclusion to life, that is dignified, quick, devoid of pain and without the loss of dignity, identity, autonomy or the ability to reason. All individuals like to pass away without becoming dependant on anyone and do not want to endure excruciating pain or suffering. However, even the advances in medical science cannot ensure that an individual will enjoy immunity from a painful and horrible end with excruciating pain, a poor quality of life and possible dependence on life sustaining drugs or assistive machines that are necessary to prolong a life for a few more days. The ultimate conclusion of any life is ultimate death and when faced with a hopeless situation some sufferers may want to speed up the passage to an ultimate end by consenting to voluntary euthanasia in which the life support systems are removed and the individual dies, either immediately, or in a few hours or days after being deprived of the ingredients necessary to prolong their life such as nutrition, oxygen or the removal of toxins etc (Ingo).
Involuntary euthanasia, as distinct from voluntary euthanasia, occurs when another person apart from the patient or the sufferer makes a decision for the individual to speed up death. Such a decision, taken without the permission and the wish of the sufferer, is always considered to be a homicide in law, because it is only the individual who has a right to make a decision about their life....
