The issue of the legality of physician assisted suicide in the United States is one that has been debated ever since the Death with Dignity Act was implemented in Oregon in 1994 ("Oregon Death with Dignity Act: A History").  People on both sides of the argument have very strong opinions and unfortunately, the law is not something that can be easily compromised, making it a tough controversy to deal with.  The Law states that terminally ill patients in the state of Oregon who have less than six months to live can request to end their lives by taking a physician prescribed lethal medication.  If their request is approved, the prescription will be written and they will have the power to die when and how they want to ("How to Access Death with Dignity Laws").  Many people arguing for the law are those who are advocating for the rights of the patients themselves, saying that they have the right to have control over when and how they die and no one should force them to live in pain any longer than they need to.  Those arguing against it are generally arguing against the morality of it and argue that the killing of an innocent human being should never be legal, no matter the circumstance.  Some believe that this law will undermine the principles behind hospitals themselves, saying that physicians should be one hundred percent focused on keeping patients alive rather than killing them ("Euthanasia").  With all these view points in mind, it is important to realize that the right to die with dignity is one that all United States citizens should possess regardless of their opinions on the matter.

The issue of physician assisted suicide first arose in 1990 when Doctor Jack Kevorkian became the first physician to assist in the death of one of his patients.  The graduate of the University of Michigan's Medical School was suddenly thrown into the spotlight of international attention when he built a machine to assist in the death of fifty-four year old Janet Adkins who was at the time still in the early stages of Alzheimer disease and had requested his aid in dying (Bernstein).  This sent many people into a state of outrage, arguing that what he did goes against everything a doctor should stand for.  This also led to the creation of laws making it a felony to provide someone with anything that will allow them to or help them end their life, knowing that they will use it for this purpose.  In the three years following the death of Janet Adkins, Doctor Kevorkian assisted in the death of over one hundred people (Bernstein).  After serving two short jail sentences and having his medical license revoked, Kevorkian was charged with first degree murder and a year later, charged again with second degree murder and sentenced to ten to twenty-five years in prison for assisting in patient suicide (Bernstein).  While many people viewed Kevorkian's actions as murder, he consistently argued that following the wishes of the patient is what a doctor is for and if they want to die peacefully, they should be allowed to do that.  While those unrelated to the situation see physician assisted suicide as murder, the family members of the patients who die with assistance from their physicians, including those of Janet Adkins, see it as "a noble service to humanity" (Rosenbaum). The lawsuits and pressure from the public never stopped Doctor Kevorkian from doing what he felt was right and just, giving his patients the rights they deserve.  

After the outrage caused by Jack Kevorkian in Michigan, it may be a surprise to hear that physician assisted suicide is legal anywhere in the United States.  Oregon however, became the first U.S. state to allow physician assisted suicide when they legalized their Death with Dignity Act in 1994, only four years after Kevorkian killed his first patient ("Oregon Death with Dignity Act: A History").  The law put in place various restrictions that made it much more appealing to the public, allowing it to pass with just over fifty percent of the vote ("Oregon Death with Dignity Act: A History").  The act stated that in order to qualify for physician assisted suicide, one must have less than six months to live.  This must be verified by not one, but two physicians and each of these physicians must inform the patient of all options available to them.  In order to start the verification process, a patient must be proven to be mentally competent and able to make such a decision and must go through a fairly lengthy request process.  The patient must make two verbal requests, separated by a minimum of fifteen days.  Following the oral requests, the patient must submit a written request using the form provided by the state.  After completing all of these steps, a prescription can be written and the patient must wait forty-eight hours to pick it up ("How to Access Death with Dignity Laws").  The Death with Dignity Act not only restricted the process by which patients go about dying through physician assisted suicide, but also the process by which physicians go about assisting in the death of their patients.  Death by injection is no longer legal and it is required for the patient to do the actual drug administration.  The specific method of drug administration varies from state to state, but generally, the physician can write the prescription for the lethal medication, but they can not physically inject the medication into the patient's body, the patient must take it on their own ("Physician-Assisted Suicide Fast Facts") ("How to Access Death with Dignity Laws").  It is also important to recognize that the patient requesting physician assisted suicide can withdraw their request at anytime and they will never be tied down to their original request.  

While this law remains very controversial to this day, there has been a drastic increase in support from Oregonian residents.  The law was originally barely passed with 51.31% of the vote in 1994 and since has been tried and appealed in court at least once a year ("Oregon Death with Dignity Act: A History").  After being ruled unconstitutional on several occasions, one would expect the support rates to go down, but when each ruling was appealed and reversed, the support went up.  These rulings are what defined the law and what guided the restrictions that were put in place to ensure that only patients that truly feel like they do not have any better options will be able to die with assistance from their physician.  In 2012, eighty percent of Oregonian residents claim to support the Death with Dignity Act ("Oregon Death with Dignity Act: A History").  This rise in support over time shows that the restrictions put in place over the years have made the law more appealing to the people of Oregon.  People are finally beginning to see that physician assisted suicide is actually a valid option for some people and that it does not hurt anyone to at least give them the opportunity to go through with it if they wish.

While most arguments against physician assisted suicide are based on the beliefs and morals of the opponents of the law, most arguments for physician assisted suicide are based solely on how it affects the terminally ill patients who can actually benefit from the law.  Those arguing for the Death with Dignity Act are in a sense arguing for the rights of terminally ill patients, rather than for the morality of it.  Their biggest argument is that it will put an end to the inevitable suffering that comes with awaiting death from their terminal disease, but many people do not see that there are so many other reasons to choose physician assisted suicide.  It allows patients to live their last few months as themselves, without the fear of losing any mental or physical capacities in front of their families (Torrey).  Most people take comfort in knowing that they are still capable of doing the simplest things in life and do not want to lose that ability.  A death through physician assistance is often less painful and much more peaceful than that of an illness.  Physician assisted suicide allows for patients to arrange to die surrounded by those important to them and allows them to say their final goodbyes and spend their final moments with family and friends ("Euthanasia").  Additionally, for those wishing to donate their organs, the chance of successful organ donations is much higher when physician assisted suicide occurs.  While this is not a good reason for a patient to choose physician assisted suicide, it is definitely a benefit that the medical world will see if physician assisted suicide is legalized throughout the United States.  These organ donations could potentially save other terminally ill patients who may not survive without a transplant.  Overall, proponents of the Death with Dignity Act have the rights of terminally ill patients in mind more so than anyone else.

Many people do not think of physician assisted suicide as a valid option for those with terminally ill conditions, but it is important that people realize that for some people it is not only the most appealing option, but often the only appealing option.  Even people like Brittany Maynard, a twenty-nine year old woman getting ready to start a family with her husband of only a couple months.  She was in the prime of her life when she was diagnosed with an aggressive form of brain cancer and was given less than six months to live (Khazan).  She knew how she wanted to die and did not want it to be out of her control.  She wanted to die peacefully in her home, surrounded by her friends and family before losing any physical or mental capacities as a result of her cancer.  She chose to end her life through physician assisted suicide only six months after being given her prognosis (Khazan).  Her friends and family describe Maynard as very level headed and thoughtful.  It was even noted that she appeared very clear-eyed and peaceful in every picture taken of her in the months leading up to her death.  Having control over how and when she died gave her this sense of peace and allowed her to live her last few months happier than she would have if she had waited for her time to come naturally, not knowing when she was going to die.  If someone as level-headed and happy as Brittany Maynard can see how valid of an option physician assisted suicide is, anyone should be able to as well.

Those who oppose the law generally do not understand the logic behind ending your life prematurely.  The story of Christy O'Donnell shows exactly why it is important to have this option.  O'Donnell is a forty-six year old mother of one and has an aggressive form of lung cancer that has spread to her brain.  She lives in California, one of the forty-five states that does not allow physician assisted suicide.  She talks about her life as a painful waiting game.  A game of going through repeated painful surgeries to insert a drain in her lungs every time the previous one stops working.  A game of never knowing when her daughter could come home to find her dead.  She talks about how she has lived a full life and is ready to die on her own terms and how her home state wont let her.  She wishes to die peacefully with her daughter at her side in her bed.  A bed that she has had ever since her daughter was born, a place where they spent a lot of happy times together ("Terminally Ill Mom: I Want to Die on My Terms").  There is no reason why this woman and her daughter should have to go through such a hard time like this without having the basic right to end it whenever they want.

Some people believe that the legalization of the Death with Dignity Act will negatively affect the entire state of the United States.  While these arguments are supported well with factual evidence and statistics, there are many logical inconsistencies within these arguments.  The first argument is that the legalization of physician assisted suicide will result in a drop in the level of patient care available to terminally ill patients.  The Patients Rights Action Fund makes this argument based on the fact that some insurance companies in Oregon have denied coverage to some of their patients due to the costs of their treatments.  These companies do still cover the costs of the medication necessary to end your life through physician assisted suicide ("Pulling Back the Curtain on Assisted Suicide").  The Patients Rights Action Fund asserts that this fact alone shows that insurance companies are urging their customers to kill themselves by not covering the more expensive treatment plans, but it is much more likely that they cover all treatments within a certain price range.  It is just a coincidence that the lethal medications are cheaper than the more intensive treatments that will cost hundreds, if not thousands of dollars.  Another main argument is that the legalization of physician assisted suicide will create an overall increase in suicide ("Pulling Back the Curtain on Assisted Suicide").  There is evidence to prove that since the legalization of the Death with Dignity Act there has been a forty-nine percent increase in the state suicide rates ("Pulling Back the Curtain on Assisted Suicide").  While this may seem convincing, it is important to note that this data includes suicides that occur through physician assisted suicide.  It should not be a surprise that allowing people to commit suicide will result in higher suicide rates.  There is no evidence to prove that this law creates an increase in suicide rates of non-terminally ill people.  These arguments may seem strong at first thought, but after looking further into the evidence behind them, it is clear that they are in fact unstable and inconsistent.

Many opponents to the Death with Dignity Act oppose the law because of their religious views.  Generally, Roman Catholics believe that the killing of a human being, regardless of the reasoning, violates divine law and offends the dignity of the person ("Religion and Spirituality - Death with Dignity").  The issue with arguing against something that can affect anyone like this based on religious views is that everyone has different religious views and every religion views things differently.  For example, not all Buddhists agree completely on the issue, but the Buddha himself did show tolerance towards some monks committing suicide.  Additionally, some Episcopalians approve in assisted dying in certain cases ("Religion and Spirituality - Death With Dignity").  With such a wide range of religions and beliefs in the world, it is simply unrealistic to assume everyone believes the same thing and does not make any sense to decide the legality of something like this based on religious views.  It would be much better to legalize physician assisted suicide and have those who believe it is immoral to not participate than to keep it illegal and not allow anyone to die through physician assisted suicide.

The only way to successfully legalize the Death with Dignity Act is by spreading awareness about the benefits of physician assisted suicide.  Most people don't even know that it is such a controversial topic or that it is legal at all, and until they do, they won't be able to properly support it.  It is important to pay attention to bills being passed in your state and reach out to any local senators to voice your opinion.  There are also petitions that can be found online that can be used to show your support for the legalization of physician assisted suicide in your state.  By spreading awareness, talking to senators and signing petitions, you can do a lot to help in the legalization of the Death with Dignity Act in a fairly easy way.

The controversy surrounding physician assisted suicide is a very complicated one that can be difficult to come to an agreement on.  The only fair thing to do when making a decision about this law is think about the terminally ill patients that will be affected by it one day.  This law will only be beneficial if it is legalized.  If physician assisted suicide becomes legal it will in no way negatively affect those who oppose it, they can simply choose not to participate in it if they are ever diagnosed with a terminal illness.  Those who support the law, however will not be able to simply ignore the illegality of it because it will not be possible.  Every U.S. citizen deserves at least the option to die peacefully and on their own terms, it is up to them if they want to take advantage of this right or not.

