Active voluntary euthanasia is defined as the intentional killing of a person because that person asked to be killed. As it relates to our Oregon law, it refers to the killing of a terminally ill patient who might otherwise face a long, difficult, and particularly painful death. As such, euthanasia has often been referred to as mercy killing. Yale Kamisar puts forward a few arguments against euthanasia in general, one being that of the infallible doctor. No doctor can have a 100% correct diagnosis all the time. So even the best doctors can sometimes misdiagnose minor illnesses as life-threatening. In short, we can never be certain that our doctors are correct in their diagnoses, no matter how many doctors we research, there is always a chance, no matter how small, that they are wrong. I wonder if Kamisar would allow himself to read a book in case he got a paper cut, would I have to light a lamp knowing full well that I might electrocute myself or that the bulb might be burned out? Why even go to a doctor and get treatment if we know he could be wrong? If everyone lived their lives like the boy in the plastic bubble, could life go on? Many of us wouldn't be able to live our lives if we didn't take calculated risks every day and, as such, accepting treatment from a doctor after a diagnosis is something most of us would benefit from if we did. he was right. Whether the doctor is right or not, we always have the right to make the choice whether or not to seek treatment and, as such, it is up to the person in question to request voluntary and active euthanasia if they wish, as specified. in the Death with Dignity act. Another argument made by Kamisar is that ... middle of paper ...... we are going down? While not the most forceful argument, I can't help but wonder at the hypocrisy with which we in the modern age view this argument. What about all the scientific advances that have made it possible to cure diseases like polio or even leprosy? Are these medical advances not interfering in the role of nature? We believe that everyone has the right to a long and fruitful life, unlike a so-called state of nature where some people will die young, call it fate or bad luck, while others will live to old age. Isn't such a way of thinking contrary to nature, are we not already playing God? Also, euthanasia may be a horrible thing if we let nature take its course, but should we expect nature to take over where we have made mistakes? Maybe euthanasia is our punishment to restore the balance of justice for messing with nature in the first place..