Kopin said that the current situation, where doctors must go out on a limb and bear the legal burden of such an important and controversial question, must be improved. "Although I think that it's a long time before people say that mercy killing should be legalized," he said, "I do think that there are times when the withholding or termination of treatments is justified. However, the definition of such cases cannot be dealt with lightly; it must involve many people from many fields."

"Even then," Kopin continued, "the direction in which things go will depend so much on the integrity of everyone involved in resolving the important social questions on the subject."

EUTHANASIA SOCIETIES in America have long advocated clearcut policies in the area with an emphasis on attempting to clear up the burden of decision which faces relatives and physicians of dying patients. The Euthanasia Educational Fund, founded in New York City in 1967, has advocated the use of a "living will."

Over 40,000 people have signed the "living wills," which tell doctors that "if there is no expectation of my recovery from physical or mental disability, I request that I be allowed to die and not be kept alive by artificial or heroic measures." Although these wills help alleviate the burden of deciding exactly what the patient desires, physicians must still take it upon themselves to interpret the "expectation of recovery."

The Euthanasia Society of America, also located in New York City, even distributes a "living will" which is in the form of a dying patient's request for death by mercy killing. Although those requests are not likely to be met by most doctors because of the illegality of such action, supporters of the Society say they have received thousands of the applications.

The issue of euthanasia, when broached to many doctors, brings the same response that the topic of legal abortion brought several years ago. Many of them simply do not want to talk openly about the issues. The issue centers so much on individual beliefs, morals and judgments, and the merits of each individual situation that physicians are always going to come under fire from some group if they make the issue an open one. Many will candidly admit a vehement opposition to actual mercy killing, but say that they may no longer elect, for instance, to give penicillin to treat the pneumonia of a terminal cancer patient.

ALMOST ALL of the doctors I talked to felt very strongly that a patient has the right to request that doctors take steps to terminate their pain and that a doctor should accede to a patient's wish not to be kept alive by unnecessary or heroic means. Most agree that just as in the area of abortion, it is clear that it is no longer a matter of continuing without guidelines for doctors to base their decisions on. The ethical and legal considerations surrounding euthanasia are far too serious, and too little exploration of them has taken place to allow them to be placed solely in the not-always-so-knowing hands of individual doctors.

Despite popular support, the issues and questions surrounding euthanasia have become far more acute and complicated for physicians, as a result of the tremendous gains in medical science's ability to significantly prolong the lives of many "terminal" patients.