I picked physician-assisted suicide as my research topic because I find the concept of it very interesting. It is a contradictory topic, some people agree with it and others believe that it is morally wrong. Then there are some people who stand in the middle and their beliefs are a bit more complicated and not as straight-forward. This is where I stand. I am Catholic and the majority of our belief is pro-life. We do not believe in abortions or suicide. This therefore affects my overall viewpoint of physician-assisted suicide. The Catholic side of me says that it should not be legal because everyone should have the full opportunity for a cure for their illness and be able to live their lives as long as they can, but there is also the logical side of me that says that if it is legal then there should be certain criteria the patient but uphold in order to be eligible for physician-assisted suicide. I personally do not have a personal or first-hand experience with the act of physician-assisted suicide, but I would presume it to be a very difficult decision to make for a patient or family of a patient. I do not have any qualifications to write about this topic but I have a strong opinion on it and a possible solution to the contradiction. 

My first article is from a website called lifenews.com and the article is titled Assisted Suicides in Oregon Jump 44 Percent as Abuses Continue. The main claim for this informative article is to inform citizens about the behind the scene facts of physician assisted suicide. It also states lots of numbers and statistics for it. The main pieces the author hits are that first, the lethal dose can be administered without oversight from the doctor. Second, he says that the number of people who died by physician assisted suicide who also had private health insurance when from 60% to 40%. His last major point was that only a few people received a psychiatric evaluation. This article touches more on the facts of physician-assisted suicide rather than one's values and morals about it. Therefore, there aren't many values at stake for the article. Although this article does include lots of facts, it still has bias. The facts are bias based and you can tell the author's opinion on physician-assisted suicide. Also, the author of this article is Alex Schadenberg and he is the Executive Director of the Euthanasia Prevent Coalition. This is an organization that is against physician-assisted suicide. Although he is bias about the topic, this could also make him a credible source because he has a lot of knowledge of the subject and has done his research to gain this knowledge. 

My second article is from The Wall Street Journal website and the title is A Doctor-Assisted Disaster for Medicine. The author's major claim in this article is that physician-assisted suicide shouldn't be legal and medical care needs to increase access to other care options for terminally ill patients. To support his claim, the author uses stories of his first-hand experiences with physician-assisted suicide. He also uses statistics from medical journals. Lastly, he talks about how insurances do not support some treatments but do support physician-assisted suicide. The author of this article believes that it is immoral and shouldn't be a solution for suffering patients. His values of the topic are clearly stated throughout the whole piece. This also creates bias. The author of this article is William L. Toffler and he is a professor of family medicine at Oregon Health & Science University in Portland. He is also a licensed physician and has been for the past 35 years. His opinion is one of the themes that supports this article. This can give the article bias but it also makes the article more credible due to his experience in the field of medicine.

My third article is from theatlantic.com and the title of it is From Doctor to Patient to Assisted-Suicide Advocate. The author of this article is writing on behalf of a physician. The physician believes that physician-assisted suicide should be legal. He joined a lawsuit in California saying that they should make the lethal medications available to certain patients. The main purpose of this article is to inform readers about California's law, this physician's opinion, and why he feels this way. The main pieces of evidence of this article is the evidence of first-hand experiences from the physician and statistics about California's law. This article has bias because it is based on the opinion of this physician. The author of this article is Anna Gorman and she is a reporter for Kaiser Health News. She is a credible source because of her resources that are available to her. 

My research question is arguable because everyone has their own opinion and ideas about physician-assisted suicide. There are two sides to the argument and there can be a solution for both sides. My first two articles agree with each other that physician-assisted suicide should be illegal but my last article believes it should be legal. The first two articles have the same ideas on why it should be illegal. All of these articles are different in their own ways due to the evidence, speaker, and main arguments. Although they do have these differences, they were all written for the same reason, to inform others of physician-assisted suicide. All three of these articles help me make my opinion on the topic. They give me information, stories, and statistics to help me develop my opinion. They also help in creating my idea of a solution to physician-assisted suicide. I don't believe that my research question should be revised any because if it is broad enough of a topic that majority of people can understand it with little background knowledge but also specific enough that it is on one topic and not multiple. 

