Active Euthanasia- a lethal drug (or another means) that directly causes death is administered.Passive Euthanasia- life sustaining measures are withheld to cause death. For example, discontinuation of nutrition.Voluntary Euthanasia- Euthanasia with the party’s consent.Involuntary Euthanasia- Euthanasia against the party’s consent or wishes.Nonvoluntary Euthanasia- Euthanasia without the party’s consent.Physician Assisted Suicide- a physician provides a prescription for a lethal dose of medication which the party will administer to themselves.Principle of Double Effect- ethical doctrine which makes a distinction between two distinct consequences of an action, one desired, one foreseen but undesired. The PDE provides that an action with both a good and a bad effect is ethically permissible if the following conditions are met:1. The action itself must be morally good or at least indifferent.2. Only the good effect must be intended (even though the bad or secondary effect is foreseen).3. The good effect must not be achieved by way of the bad effect.4. The good result must outweigh the bad result.Ordinary Means- medical interventions which are likely to have a beneficial outcome and are minimally burdensome. This can also include means of life support such as basic nutrition.Extraordinary Means- medical interventions which are unlikely to have a beneficial outcome and/or are unreasonably burdensome.Dignity vs. Price“In the kingdom of ends everything has either a price or a dignity. What has a price can be replaced by something else as its equivalent; what on the other hand is raised above all price and therefore admits of no equivalent has a dignity. What is related to general human inclinations andneeds has a market price; that which, even without presupposing a need, conforms with a certain taste, that is, with a delight in the mere purposeless play of our mental powers, has a fancy price; but that which constitutes the condition under which alone something can be an end in itself has not merely a relative worth, that is, a price, but an inner worth, that is, dignity. Now, morality is the condition under which alone a rational being can be an end in itself, since only through this isit possible to be a lawgiving member in the kingdom of ends. Hence morality, and humanity insofar as it is capable of morality, is that which alone has dignity. Skill and diligence in work have a market price; wit, lively imagination and humor have a fancy price; on the other hand, fidelity in promises and benevolence from basic principles (not from instinct) have an inner worth. Nature, as well as art, contains nothing that, lacking these, it could put in their place; for their worth does not consist in the effects arising from them, in the advantage and use they provide, but in dispositions, that is, in maxims of the will that in this way are ready to manifestthemselves through actions, even if success does not favor them. Such actions also need no recommendation from any subjective disposition or taste, so as to be looked upon with immediate favor and delight, nor do they need any immediate propensity or feeling for them; they present the will that practices them as the object of an immediate respect, and nothing but reason is required to impose them upon the will, not to coax them from it, which latter would in any case be a contradiction in the case of duties. This estimation therefore lets the worth of such a cast of mind be cognized as dignity and puts it infinitely above all price, with which it cannot be brought into comparison or competition at all without, as it were, assaulting its holiness. And what is it, then, that justifies a morally good disposition, or virtue, in making such high claims? Itis nothing less than the share it affords a rational being in the giving of universal laws, by which it makes him fit to be a member of a possible kingdom of ends, which he was already destined tobe by his own nature as an end in itself and, for that very reason, as lawgiving in the kingdom of ends - as free with respect to all laws of nature, obeying only those which he himself gives and inaccordance with which his maxims can belong to a giving of universal law (to which at the same time he subjects himself). For, nothing can have a worth other than that which the law determines for it. But the lawgiving itself, which determines all worth, must for that very reason have a dignity, that is, an unconditional, incomparable worth; and the word respect alone provides a becoming expression for the estimate of it that a rational being must give. Autonomy is therefore the ground of the dignity of human nature and of every rational nature.”1Kant on Suicide“Someone feels sick of life because of a series of troubles that has grown to the point of despair, but is still so far in possession of his reason that he can ask himself whether it would not be contrary to his duty to himself to take his own life. Now he inquires whether the maxim of his action could indeed become a universal law of nature. His maxim, however, is: from self-love I make it my principle to shorten my life when its longer duration threatens more troubles than it promises agreeableness. The only further question is whether this principle of self-love could become a universal law of nature. It is then seen at once that a nature whose law it would be to destroy life itself by means of the same feeling whose destination is to impel toward the furtherance of life would contradict itself and would therefore not subsist as nature; thus that maxim could not possibly be a law of nature and, accordingly, altogether opposes the supreme principle of all duty.”2Legal Cases:Vacco v. Quill 1997Washington v. Glucksberg 1997Pair of Supreme Court cases where the court unanimously ruled that there is no constitutionally protected right to die, to suicide, or to physician assisted suicide.1 Immanuel Kant. Groundwork of the metaphysics of morals. [4:434-435]2 Ibid.