Arrangements (e.g. A, C, B, D, E): Description and Explanation of each: Evaluation:

[A] The World Health Organization (WHO) has taken a stand against euthanasia. WHO argues that a patient can be released from pain in more than 90 per cent of the cases if palliative care using morphine or other drugs is sufficiently administered. The World Medical Association stated in its Declaration of Lisbon, adopted in 1981, "The patient has the right to die in dignity." It has not acknowledged physician-assisted suicide and active euthanasia. Conversely, there is a popular movement to get euthanasia accepted because many see modern life-sustaining technology as only prolonging the suffering of the terminally ill.

[B] A concise definition of euthanasia does not exist, though acts of euthanasia have been variously categorized. To illustrate, passive euthanasia allows a patient to die naturally by withholding or withdrawing life-sustaining treatment. Active euthanasia ends a patient's life by directly administering a lethal drug to the patient. In the case of physician-assisted suicide, the patient ingests a lethal substance prescribed by a physician.

[C] Euthanasia, which leads a patient to death in order to escape unbearable pain, has been around since the time of ancient Greece. The English word "euthanasia" was drawn from Greek (eu for good or noble and thanatos for death) and literally means "the good death."

[D] As of April 1998, the Netherlands and Oregon, in the United States, are the only places where euthanasia can be carried out by prescribing lethal drugs to a patient. In both countries, the most important requirement for euthanasia to be acceptable is a patient's persistent, voluntary, and contemplated request. Any violation of this requirement is regarded as a felony. There are also specific diagnostic requirements of the patient's condition that must be met before euthanasia can be carried out. A patient must undergo intolerable suffering. The attending physician must then consult and be in agreement with at least one other colleague.

[E] In 1975, Karen Ann Quinlan, 21, a New Jersey resident, fell into a coma. She was taken to a local hospital and immediately hooked up to a respirator. She was later diagnosed as being in a persistent vegetative state. Her parents asked the attending physician to disconnect their daughter's respirator, insisting that she would never have wanted to be kept alive in a vegetative state. The attending physician declined the parents' request on the grounds that disconnecting the respirator would be a substantial deviation from medical practices, standards, and traditions.

Mr. Quinlan petitioned the Superior Court of New Jersey to become his daughter's guardian. He asked that he be granted the express power to authorize the discontinuance of all extraordinary means of sustaining the vital processes of his daughter's life. The court refused to grant him the requested relief, holding that "the determination [of] whether or not Karen Ann Quinlan [should] be removed from the respirator is to be left to the treating physician."

Mr. Quinlan filed an appeal with the Supreme Court of New Jersey. In 1976, the supreme court reversed the lower court's decision and granted the relief sought by Karen's father. The supreme court upheld Karen's constitutional "right of privacy". The court held that "[the right of privacy] is broad enough to encompass a patient's decision to decline medical treatment under certain circumstances." "The termination of treatment pursuant to the right of privacy is, within the limitations of this case, ipso facto lawful." The court noted that "the State's interest [in the preservation of life] weakens and the individual's right to privacy grows as the degree of bodily invasion increases and the prognosis dims. Ultimately there comes a point at which the individual's rights overcome the State interest." The court further decided that "Karen's right of privacy may be asserted on her behalf by her guardian under the peculiar circumstances here present" and appointed her father as her guardian, granting him the choice of the attending physician. The court concluded that "Upon the concurrence of the guardian and family of Karen, should the responsible attending physician conclude that there is no reasonable possibility of Karen's ever emerging from her present comatose condition to a cognitive, sapient state and that the life-support apparatus ... should be disconnected, they shall consult with the hospital "Ethics Committee" or like body of the institution in which Karen is then hospitalized. If that consultative body agrees [with the prognosis], the present life-support system may be withdrawn ... without any civil or criminal liability ... on the part of any participant ... "

Although Karen was later removed from the respirator, she started to breathe on her own. She remained in a persistent vegetative state without ever regaining consciousness for more than 9 years. Karen died of pneumonia at the age of 31 in 1985.