Euthanasia is defined in the Webster dictionary as, "the act or practice of permitting the death of hopelessly sick or injured individuals in a relatively painless way for reasons of mercy" (Merriam-Webster). Euthanasia comes from the combination of the Greek words eu, which translates to good, and thanatos which means death (Nordqvist 2). The first mention of euthanasia is in the Hippocratic Oath which is an oath taken by doctors before beginning their practice. It includes a line that says "to please no one will I prescribe a deadly drug nor give advice which may cause his death" regarding to the refusal of practicing euthanasia (Nordqvist 2). The first anti-euthanasia law was passed in New York in 1828 in response to a growing topic of debate (Nordqvist 2). The first popular case of euthanasia in the United States involved a young girl named Karen Quinlan who lived on a ventilator for months after she returned from a party and became unconscious (Nordqvist 2). When her parents asked the hospital to take her off the "active care" months later, the hospital denied it due to "subsequent legal battles" (Nordqvist 2). Eventually Quinlan's case helped lead to the legal protection of voluntary passive euthanasia in the late 1970's (Nordqvist 2). In 1994, Oregon approved the "Death with Dignity Act" and in the mid 2000's, Washington state became the second state to legalize euthanasia (Nordqvist 2). Euthanasia is a rising debate in the United States because it is a relevant and ethical problem. The people of the United States should have the right to die, just like they have the right to protest and bear arms. Our culture views death as an awful and dreadful thing, but its inevitable. In order for euthanasia to be legal in the US, we as a society need to change our view of death. 

Christian Nordqvist introduces the two main classifications of euthanasia and two procedural classifications of euthanasia in his article in medical news today (1). Nordqvist is the founder of Medilexicon International limited and attended school at the Kingswood school in the UK. According to Christian, the two classifications of euthanasia are voluntary euthanasia which is consented, and involuntary euthanasia which is without consent (Nordqvist 1). Nordqvist also introduces passive and active euthanasia, passive meaning the withholding of life-sustaining treatments and active meaning the use of lethal substances to end a patient's life (1).  The argument regarding the legalization of euthanasia has two sides: either you support it or you don't. Within these two arguments there are several sub arguments. For example, euthanasia is suicide which is a sin so those who commit it will go to hell, or euthanasia is murder and physicians should be tried for murder if they help end one's life. There is also the argument of what qualifies someone to undergo euthanasia. How do we go about it and keep the right from being taken advantage of by doctors and physicians?   

Palliation refers to treatment of pain and symptoms with the knowledge that death may occur quickly where as euthanasia refers to endings one life to end suffering ("Judging the Quality of Mercy" 1). Many people get palliation and euthanasia confused because they have several of the same goals, but they are many differences between the two ("Judging the Quality of Mercy" 1). In palliation, the physicians lack control and are forced to let the disease take its toll on the patient's body while attempting to withhold any pain or symptoms possible, while euthanasia allows physicians to end one's pain and suffering upon the patients request ("Judging the Quality of Mercy" 1). The article, "Judging the Quality of Mercy: Drawing the Line Between Palliation and Euthanasia" also introduces the term palliative sedation. Palliative sedation refers to giving sedations to patients at the end of their life to relieve symptoms of pain, agitation or distress ("Judging the Quality of Mercy" 1).  

There have been many studies that ask the opinions of how people feel about euthanasia in countries where it is legal. In a study looking at 16 caretakers of people with dementia, subjects were interviewed and asked questions about their experience (Tomlinson 1). The study resulted in 19 subthemes and five key themes of how caretakers felt and what their concerns were (Tomlinson 1). The five key themes discovered consisted of: the right to die, 'its complex', suffering, problems with ending life, and talking about euthanasia (Tomlinson 1). The first theme, the right to die, consisted of participants who viewed the issue as their loved ones' choice and right to "determine their own death" (Tomlinson 3).  One subject even mentions that they were brought up a Catholic and that they disagree with the act of euthanasia, however it is the individuals right (Tomlinson 3). When discussing the second theme, 'its complex', the need for caution and "careful deliberation" were important to caretakers even though there was a general acceptance and agreement for the right to die (Tomlinson 3). The third key theme discusses suffering, which is ideally the main reason individuals with dementia resorted to assisted death (Tomlinson 4).  Many of the caretakers agreed that it was an easy way to end the pain that not only the patients felt, but that their families felt as well (Tomlinson 4).  Problems with ending life was the fourth theme emerged from this study and it discusses the feelings of caretakers who would not take part in assisted dying (Tomlinson 4).  They mentioned that they wouldn't consider it, whether for dementia or something else (Tomlinson 4).  The fifth and final theme, talking about assisted dying, discussed how caretakers felt when talking to health care professionals about euthanasia (Tomlinson 5). Some said that it would help to talk, but others said it would be very difficult and "abnormal" (Tomlinson 5). The results of the study showed that the majority of the participants agreed and supported the right to die with dementia, but it is more complex than black and white (Tomlinson 5).  It is complex in the sense of its ethical issues regarding to mental state (Tomlinson 6).  

Another study regarding the opinions of people about euthanasia was found in the article, "Opinions of Health Care Professionals and the Public After Eight Years of Euthanasia Legislation in the Netherlands: A Mixed Methods Approach". This article describes a survey and outlines the methods, results, interpretations, acknowledgements and funding of the survey itself (Kouwenhoven 274). The study took place in the Netherlands where euthanasia has been legal since 2002 (Kouwenhoven 274). Pauline Kouwenhoven, a medical ethics professor at the University Medical Center at Rotterdam, used this experiment to "evaluate opinions about the law among Dutch health care professionals and the general public after eight years of official legislation (Kouwenhoven 274). A variety of people were used for this study including doctors, nurses and the general public (Kouwenhoven 274). The purpose of using a variety of participants was to learn the opinion of the law from more than just health care professionals (Kouwenhoven 274). The results of the study showed the majority of people's opinions were that they agreed with the current legal standing of euthanasia even though their have personal attitudes toward the subject (Kouwenhoven 275). 

When asked if physician-assisted suicide is ever justifiable, Tony Yang, an Associate Professor in the Department of Health Administration and Policy at George Mason University and MIT graduate, answered no (1). He criticizes the professional role of physicians who do think that euthanasia is okay and says that physicians will lose the trust of those "made vulnerable by sickness and debility" (Yang 1). For ever and ever, physicians have always aimed to try and save lives and better the health of people. Yang states that a physician's role is to maintain health, not end a patient's life because its deemed "not worth living" (1). Euthanasia also contradicts a physician's role and goes against everything they were taught and the Hippocratic Oath in which they were sworn into before beginning their practice (Yang 2). "Euthanasia and Mental Suffering: An Ethical Advice for Catholic Mental Health Services" is another article that opposes euthanasia. It discusses the catholic moral theology and ethical advice given when someone who is Catholic has a loved one that requests euthanasia (Liegeois 72). There is an act in Belgium that legalizes euthanasia and for the many Catholics in Belgium, this is a hard concept to grasp (Liegeois 73). This article discusses the difficulty that catholic caregivers have when their psychiatric patient requests euthanasia in order to put them out of their mental suffering (Liegeois 73). The Roman Catholic Church is strongly against euthanasia and views it as murder, no matter what the reason (Liegeois 73).  This is difficult for the caregivers and causes tension especially because the Belgian act states that euthanasia is no longer illegal under certain situations (Liegeois 73).

How do we change the way that we view death; introducing more laws? Update Hippocratic oath? Day of the dead moved to here? Change language and promote other cultures ways of thinking. 

I believe that euthanasia should be legal because people should have the right to die. It is a scary concept to think about because it is new and different than previous thinking. In an older society where religion was firm and strict, euthanasia would never even be talked about because suicide is a sin. However, we are living in a newer, more developed culture where religion does not play as big of a role in society. It is also frightening that if euthanasia does become legal, then we are giving physician's power to kill. This goes against the Hippocratic Oath that doctors are required to take which makes them promise to do whatever it takes to save someone's life and to help, not harm. Once again, we are living in a new society where some of that oath is outdated, like the part where they promise not to abort a woman's child. To justify euthanasia and decide where it should stand legally, we must decide what our definition of death is. To do this, we have to look at the history of death and how it has changed over time. 300 hundred years ago, if someone contracted an illness or a disease, they would die within a couple of days. With today's technology we can use medication to either cure or prolong these deaths. Yes, the medical advances we have today are incredible and cures and vaccines have helped save many lives, but for detrimental diseases that have no cure we are just prolonging death and prolonging pain and suffering. Death is a natural process so why do we try and escape it? Society is afraid of dying and that is where the problem lies. The definition of death needs to change and people need to stop being so afraid of it. Once people stop being afraid of death, the idea of euthanasia will not be so controversial and absurd. Instead it will be seen as a way of giving your loved one peace and allowing them to die when they're meant to be, without pain. In order for our society to achieve this, we must update the Hippocratic oath and include euthanasia in that oath. It can be introduced as a way to ends one pain and suffering and if we do this, people will start to adapt to the idea of euthanasia at a younger age and will therefore accept it more. When we update the Hippocratic oath, we can pass legislation laws that legalize euthanasia because the people will already have a general idea of it and they accept it more. Another way to change the definition of death in American culture is to look at and be aware of other cultures views on death. In Mexico there is a two-day holiday, "Dia de los Muertos", that translates to "the day of the dead". During this holiday, mothers, fathers, children, family and friends dress up in skulls and skeletons to celebrate the life of their loved ones who have passed. In the United States there is so much Hispanic culture integrated into our society. If we adapt this Hispanic holiday, like we did Cinco de Mayo, we can once again get a better understanding of death and accept it more. The answer to my research question, "Why do people not have the right to die?" is that people do not have the right to die because our definition of death is outdated and misunderstood.

The Death with Dignity Act in Oregon was enacted on October 27th, 1997 (Aungst 20). This act allows the terminally ill to undergo a voluntary and self administered lethal dose of medications that were prescribed by a physician for the purpose of ending their life (Aungst 20). Physicians have learned many things from this act, including the observation that most people who requests to end their death are hoping to gain control in their death since they lost the control of their life (Aungst 20).  A key part of Oregon's success with this act is their "screening for depression" (Aungst 21). This has been one of the largest concerns the people of Oregon have had because its an easy way out for those that are depressed and want to end their life (Aungst 21).  However, despite these concerns, the current Act stands well within the state of Oregon and provides an excellent example for the rest of the United States on how we as a society can handle the legalization of euthanasia. 

In the article "The right to die" from The Economist, the topic of ethics is discussed when it comes to euthanasia. It is an unethical approach because the choice that should be the patients is "wholly in the hands of a doctor" ("The Right to Die"). The Economist then comes out to say that this is hypocritical especially because most patients have teams of doctors and not just one, preventing the abuse of euthanasia, "death by nods and winks is no good" ("The Right to Die"). The argument of fear is addressed in this article and explains that yes, there is a worry, but the current standing and experience in Oregon suggest differently ("The Right to Die"). The fear of euthanasia decreasing health care status is also addressed and resolved by referencing surveys that say doctors are trusted in countries with legal euthanasia just as much as countries without legal euthanasia ("The Right to Die"). The Economists agrees with my argument that we have no right to deny people the right to assisted death and that we as people deserve the right to control our death ("The Right to Die").

In a TEDMED video talk, a medical version of TedTalk, Peggy Battin tells the story of why her husband, Brooke Hopkins, chose to end his life in 2014 using physician assisted suicide. She describes how her husband became paralyzed in a bike accident that required him to live with five medical machines to keep him alive. At first Hopkins was thankful for his life and he was happy to still be alive because he had more time with his loving wife.  However, as days and months went on, the struggle to live continued to grow and he knew it was time to die. Peggy's husband told her that he wanted to go "peacefully and without pain, in his home with his family", and of course with the help of a physician. Ironically, Peggy Battin is well educated on the topic of euthanasia. She has a PhD in philosophy which she received from the University of California and she is a professor in the division of medical ethics at the University of Utah, school of medicine.  This goes to show that even someone with an education in ethics can experience and accept euthanasia when it comes down to the well being of a loved one. 

My great grandmother passed away when I was in 7th grade. She died of old age but she also had Alzheimer's and the last time I saw her, she thought that I was her daughter. The following year we lost my Granny Jane to a combination of Alzheimer's and dementia. The last time I saw her, she recognized my friend that she had never met, but not me. She was alos in a home where the man beside her screamed relentlessly while staring at a wall. Watching the two of them forget not only who I was, but who they were, was on of the hardest things I ever had to go through. If I ever found myself in that position, I would hope that I would have the right to die for the sake of myself and my family. Euthanasia should be legal in the United States because it is an individual's right to die. Euthanasia is not an easy topic and it is very complex, but it is worth it to at least give people the option and to let them know they have to right to end their life if they please. Euthanasia is not suicide; it is a way to relieve pain instead of prolonging it. Death is not something to fear and as a country, this idea needs to be adapted. As I mentioned previously, Mexico celebrates the life of lost loved ones during their "Dia de Los Muertos" holiday. Isn't that the more important thing to remember, their life?  Our society is almost selfish in the way that we view death. "I can't live without them, what am I going to do without them, how will I ever get through this?" these are some of the many questions we ask ourselves when we lose a loved one, but it isn't about us. If my loved one is miserable and in pain, they should be able to end their life with the help of a physician in order to help themselves. Death is nothing to be afraid of, and until our society realizes this, we will not have the right to die. 

