Read the passage and answer the following questions.
On 9 March 2018, the Supreme Court of India legalised passive euthanasia by means of the withdrawal of life support to patients in a permanent vegetative state. Euthanasia is not morally permissible because the dignity of a human person does not depend on the amount of suffering that someone goes through. Their dignity is inherent, being a human person. If someone complies with the idea of euthanasia, then they equate dignity with intellectual and physical capabilities, which is wrong. True compassion demands that we love and support one another regardless of our function or appearance and prepare someone for their ultimate purpose which is fulfilling their humanity, not ending it prematurely as they could be enlightened and fulfill their humanity through their suffering. The high court rejected active euthanasia by means of lethal injection. In the absence of a law regulating euthanasia in India, the court stated that its decision becomes the law of the land until the Indian parliament enacts a suitable law. Active euthanasia, including the administration of lethal compounds for the purpose of ending life, is still illegal in India, and in most countries. Most would agree that each person has the right to control what happens to his or her body and his or her life. Following this logic, why doesn’t this right carry over to the right to control how one dies when applied to the terminally ill? Values such as privacy, freedom, and autonomy are highly regarded in our society and are frequently protected and yet these rights are not applied to one of the most personal moments of a person’s life - death. There is no moral dilemma when the individual chooses to follow what he or she believes to be the best path towards achieving the good life, even if that involves ending their life when burdened with a terminal illness.