Euthanasia: The Death DebateA recent survey conducted by the Canadian Medical Association found that “only one in five doctors interviewed. . . they said they would be willing to practice euthanasia if the practice were legalized. . . Twice as many – 42% – said they would refuse to do so” (Kirkey 1). Euthanasia is defined as granting a patient the right to die prematurely with the assistance of a doctor, and legalization of this practice is being considered by lawmakers in many countries, including the United States. As a result, 42% of Canadian doctors are on the right side of this debate. Euthanasia should not be legalized because it violates society's view that life is sacred, creates economic pressure for doctors, and for those countries that have legalized it, their laws are not specific enough to fully protect patients . The protection of life has been a foundation for many laws and social customs, and the legalization of euthanasia diminishes that protection. A recent challenge to this idea came in a lawsuit in London when two severely disabled men claimed that their protected human rights had been violated because they could not choose how and when they died. The British Court ruled that, although current laws do not support the rights claimed by men, “the ban on euthanasia is justified” (Cheng 1). In this case, the right to life prevailed over the so-called right to die because a law enacted by the British people was protected. If the case had won, the laws passed by British voters to protect life would have been abandoned. Similarly in the United States, many bills aimed at promoting euthanasia died once voters were made aware of the debate. Initiative 119, which would have legalized euthanasia in Washington in 1991, at first shows… mid-paper… here the beneficiaries of the interest in liberty” (Smith 5). The Court's ruling in favor of euthanasia is broad and nonspecific, allowing euthanasia for the "severely impaired," which although it claims to be beneficial to patients, could be applied to treatable conditions. Like existing laws and information advertised to the public about saving money, euthanasia advocates are not specific and do not tell the whole story of a problem that could cost lives and increase trauma for families. Canadian doctors also argue that euthanasia is currently a tragedy of our world. Death should never be a prescription to end a patient's life and this premise diminishes society's view of life. In order to prevent this continuing travesty, citizens should be informed about the dangers that euthanasia laws present to patients before a measure is brought to lawmakers for approval..