The applied ethical issue of euthanasia, or mercy killing, concerns whether it is morally permissible for a third party, such as phsiycian, to end the life of a terminally ill patient who is in intense pain. The eutanasia controversy is part of a larger issue concerning the right to die. Staunch defenders of personal liberty argue that all of us are morally entitled to end our lives when we see fit. Thus, according to these people, suicide is in principle morally permissible. For health care workers, the issue of the right to die is most promitent when a patient in their care (1) is terminally ill, (2) is in intense pain, and (3) voluntarily chooses to end his life to escape prolonged suffering. In these cases, there are several theoretical opinions open to the health care workers. First, the worker can ignore the patient’s request and care can continue as usual. Second, the worker can discontinue providing life – sustaining treatment to the patient, and thus allow him to die more quickly. This option is called passive euthanasia since it brings on death through nonintervention. Third, the health care worker can provide the patient with the means of taking his own life, such as lethak dose of drug. This practice is called assisted suicide, since it is the patient, and not technically the health care worker, who adinisters the drug. Finally, the health care worker can take active measures to end the patient’s life, such as by directly administering a lethal dose drug. This practice is called active euthanasia since the health care worker’s actoin in direct cause of the patient’s death. Active euthanasia is the most controversial of the four options and is currently illegal in the United States. However, several right to die organizations are lobbying for the law against active euthanasia to change.