Nick Sarkisian Euthanasia is one of the most intriguing debates to have because both sides to the argument are so strong. The advocates for active euthanasia argue that every human has the right to die if they are going to be in extreme pain or stress from an illness that comes with impending doom/death. The opposing argument is that human dignity has to be respected and that life is the greatest thing ever and that death is the ultimate evil. In this case of Mr. Collums and his brother (J.K.) with Alzheimer’s, the act of euthanasia is involuntary euthanasia. It is involuntary because J.K. was unable to care for any of his bodily needs, and could not speak or communicate with anyone. He was being fed applesauce through a tube basically. Since J.K. was in a state of vegetation, he was not capable of giving his brother the “A-Ok” to shoot him five times as fast as he could. Being a student of John Hardwig, James Rachel, and Peter Singer, I would argue in Mr. Collums’s side because the philosophers are in favor of dying quickly and painlessly rather than long and suffering. Although the philosophers have somewhat similar arguments, they each bring a unique way of looking at their position and defending it. John Hardwig is the head of the department of philosophy at the University of Tennessee, Knoxville. Hardwig’s argument is that there is so called “Duty to Die”. The duty to die goes beyond refusing treatment, also known as passive euthanasia. It also stretches so far that someone may have to end their life, even in the absence of chronic disease and if they would prefer to live. The duty to die becomes more apparent when the burdens of providing care outweigh the obligation to provide care. Hardwig defends against objections by denying that there is a higher duty; the duty to die does not apply consistently to human dignity; and that losing a life is always a