Is it our duty as human beings to recognize when pain and suffering weighs on the higher pleasures of life. And how are we supposed to distinguish between pains to determine who has the right to obtain death? We strongly believe that people should not have to suffer during their final days of life, but we are afraid to actively take responsibility for directly killing someone, even if their last wish was to die peacefully and painlessly. If as humans we have the right to life, why should we not have the permanent right to our own death? As humans, we think that if “I want to be the only person harmed by my choice, then let me choose to do what I want.” This moral motto has evoked many funny videos on the Internet, including Conversely, euthanasia is not legal in Canada. Euthanasia, or physician-assisted suicide, is the action of a doctor who kills a person who has asked to die but is unable to commit suicide on their own. The main moral problem surrounding euthanasia is that the act of suicide now involves more than one person. It is therefore no longer considered as suicide of oneself, but as the act of someone killing another. There are two types of euthanasia, passive and active. Although the general public does not recognize passive euthanasia as physician-assisted suicide, it is nonetheless a technically legal form of euthanasia. Passive euthanasia is when the underlying cause of death is illness. When terminally ill people refuse to be kept alive by machines or drugs, which is within their legal rights, they are contributing to the advancement of their own death, which is a form of passive euthanasia. Active euthanasia occurs when the cause of death is inflicted by the doctor on an already dying patient. Active euthanasia places the blame on the doctor as the primary cause of death. This is why active euthanasia is illegal and considered much worse than passive. The act