This article bears a polemical character. Apart from the arguments for euthanasia, the reader will have an opportunity to get acquainted also with the arguments against considering euthanasia as morally justified. The ethical debate on the problem euthanasia should exhibit characteristics of a controversy over arguments. However, rejection of euthanasia does not mean undertaking all the possible efforts that aim at prolonging human life. There are situations in which a doctor must take a dramatic decision not to start a therapy or decision to abandon it, limiting his intervention to alleviating the patient’s pain.
The article concerns the metaphysical problem of divine will as it is discussed in the Leibniz-Clarke correspondence. Its essence can be expressed in the following question: in which way the determinism developed by Leibniz goes along with his doctrine of freedom in action and deciding? Leibniz is convinced that there is no contradiction between these two theses. Clarke is strongly opposed to that view. He is the protagonist of indeterminism. The article is divided into two parts. The first part deals with the divine will in relation to the principle of the sufficient reason. The second part points to some difficulties related to Leibniz's view on determinism.