Many people may say that there is a fine line between right and wrong, but when it comes to choosing to end someone's life in order to end end to his suffering, who can say where that line lies? When it comes to assisted suicide, to me the line is drawn on the side where assisted suicide is justified, but only in certain circumstances. “No one wants to die. Even those who want to go to heaven don't want to die to get there. And yet, death is the destination we all share. » There are several types of euthanasia. The first is called “voluntary euthanasia”, that is, when the patient wants and wants to die. The second is called “involuntary euthanasia”, that is, when the victim does not and does not want to die. The third type of euthanasia is called "active euthanasia", in which the victim or doctor uses drugs to end the victim's life. The fourth type of euthanasia is called “passive euthanasia,” in which the victim is killed by removing the needs necessary for survival, such as water, food, medications, or medical and surgical procedures. The fifth type of euthanasia is called “physician-assisted suicide,” in which the doctor kills the patients. The final type of euthanasia is called “assisted suicide,” which is suicide aided by another person. (http://www.terrisfight.org/facts-about-euthanasia/)In my opinion, I think any type of suicide is wrong. In some circumstances this is understandable, even if it remains false. Studies show that the top five reasons given by patients who chose physician-assisted suicide in 2005 were: fear of diminishing their ability to perform enjoyable activities, fear of losing their dignity, fear of losing their autonomy, the fear of losing control of their bodily functions and the fear of being a burden...... middle of paper......ason is one that I'm not sure I like too much, because dogs and humans are two totally different things, even though both are alive, I believe dogs share a universal soul while humans are each individual. A final argument is: "Keeping people alive costs a lot of money, which could be used to save other people's lives." This argument also bothers me a little. It's true that keeping people alive costs money, but that money is TO keep people alive. Even if the people kept alive don't want to live, that alone contradicts my argument. (http://www.rsrevision.com/GCSE/christian_perspectives/life/euthanasia/for.htm)When it comes to a family member or loved one, how would you feel about having to be put in a position where do you have to choose life or death for this person? What would you choose? Even if this person wanted to die, where do we draw the line??