When diagnosed with a terminal illness, should the affected patient have the right to end ones life through a quick painless death, or rather should they be deterred from their human rights and be forced to endure much unnecessary pain and suffering? For most, the answer to this question is obviously outstanding. Then again, should this controversial practice of intentionally taking the life of a human being be legal in the United States? This question has been repeatedly asked for many years, but a defined conclusion has yet to be produced. Euthanasia, commonly referred to as physician-assisted suicide, painless killing, and mercy killing, is the act or practice of permitting the death of a suffering individual through a means of a quick and painless way to pass ("Euthanasia").  Numerous amounts of people conclude that the means of physician-assisted suicide is as inferior to murder, and should be tried accordingly. On the other hand there is a vast belief that this is a peaceful and just way to die with dignity, surrounded by close friends, family and loved ones, without the burden of pain and suffering. The thought of being able to give closure to the ones who have supported you throughout your life is a very comforting idea, one that should be greatly considered when determining a stance on this contentious practice. The option of predetermining his or her own death should be readily available if necessary. Euthanasia should be legalized in the United States because predetermined death is a personal choice and we as humans are guaranteed natural rights to do so accordingly.

As of now the practice of physician-assisted suicide is legal in four of our fifty states; including, Montana, Oregon, Vermont, and Washington ("Suicide Statistics - AFSP"). Montana, the most unclear of the four states, contends that the existing law regarding euthanasia provides immunity to doctors for withholding or withdrawing life support treatment for the terminally-ill, but does not specifically address physician-assisted suicide as a means of action . ("Brief Reflections on Euthanasia").  In 1994 Oregon declared that any adult with Oregon residency that has been diagnosed with a terminal illness and has voluntarily expressed ones will to die may make a written request for medication to end ones life in a humane manner ("Brief Reflections on Euthanasia") Similar procedures in both Washington and Vermont have strictly regulated the option of euthanasia among the terminally ill and successfully have brought peaceful closure to worried loved ones. Although many other states have tried to legalize this graceful act, none have succeeded.

Globally the act of euthanasia and/or mercy killing is so far legal in only seven countries: Belgium, Colombia, India, Ireland, Luxembourg, Mexico, and the Netherlands ("Suicide Statistics  --  AFSP").  Although actual physician-assisted suicide is legal in most of these seven countries, a few of them are only allowing the act of mercy killing. This includes, removing life support of the terminally ill, or the request from a patient to refuse receiving further treatment for their illness. ("Suicide Statistics - AFSP").  Even though these laws are in place, some may say that mercy killing is an inhumane way of death and could cause the patient to suffer through much pain before they finally pass. Parallel to the laws of the seven American states who have legalized physician-assisted suicide the five remaining countries must abide by strict laws and regulations to allow this option to be acceptable. According to the euthanasia law in Luxembourg, doctors of the terminally ill are granted access to end their life but only after the patient has stated multiple times their will to die, concluding to a final decision that must be reached with the approval of a panel of experts and two other doctors ("Suicide Statistics - AFSP"). The correct, humane way of euthanasia must still be thoroughly determined, but for those countries that are able to provide a patient with a truly painless death have efficiently closed any gaps that could lead to abuse or misdiagnosis.

It is especially important to remember that euthanasia is a quick and painless process.  The actual word itself means "good death." The Greek prefix "eu" means "good" and "thanatos" means "death." There are many methods used to perform euthanasia on humans in the United States. The most common method to undergo this procedure is a doctor prescribed pill. Once the patients prescription is filled, one must understand that after a single dose, death will be the outcome. After the patient ingests the drug, they will be sedated into a coma which will eventually end their life. Of all the recorded cases, so far it has been reported that 17% of the time orally prescribed drugs have failed allowing the patient to awaken from his or her coma ("Methods of Euthanasia"). This ushers the question; is orally prescribed medication that is used to end ones life the most humane option? Extensive research has brought light to another way of providing terminally ill patients with a more certain outcome. This method is called euthanasia by injection. To ensure a certain, more humane death, "the practice involves an injection to render the patient comatose, followed by a second injection to stop the heart"("Methods of Euthanasia"). This practice is quick, painless, and certainly meets the standards of humane euthanasia world wide.

Figure 1 displays the number of people who are for, against, and without an opinion for euthanasia, regarding solely on how the question was asked. When conducting the survey random people were approached by this topic in two different manners. One group was asked the question; represented by "Form A," "When a person has a disease that cannot be cured, do you think doctors should be allowed by law to end the patient's life by some painless means if the patient and his or her family request it?" ("U.S. Support for Euthanasia"). And the other question asked; represented by "Form B," "When a person has a disease that cannot be cured and is living in severe pain, do you think doctors should or should not be allowed by law to assist the patient to commit suicide if the patient requests it?" ("U.S. Support for Euthanasia"). The key words in each question being, "end the patients life" and "commit suicide." When surveyors were approached with question "Form A," 70% of them responded that the action of euthanasia should be legal in the United States. When surveyors were approached with the question "Form B," only 51% of them responded that the action of euthanasia should be legal in the United States. This leads to the uncertainty of, is the reason for conflict regarding the legality of euthanasia here in the United States somewhat based on how it is presented? Even though both questions are asking and representing the same argument, diction proves to alter the outcome. The legalization of euthanasia in the United States should be determined by analyzing it's impact on humanity and not by it's outstanding diction.

The United States was built around the idea that all citizens should be granted with human rights to protect our freedom in the free world we live in today. The Declaration of Independence states "all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness" ("The Declaration of Independence: A Transcription"). If we have been granted the right of life, shouldn't we be able to do what we want with it as we please? We have been given the right to our pursuit of happiness, so why is it that when a patients longed for satisfaction of being released from their excruciating pain being withheld from ones course of action? This elementary law that is being ripped away from many suffering patients goes against what our founding fathers built this country on. Euthanasia should be legalized because we are guaranteed human rights in the United States of America.

The sudden realization that one only has limited time to live is extremely tragic, and for the family of that person brings much stress having to deal with the fact that their loved ones last moments on earth must be lived by dealing with excruciating pain and suffering. Not only that, the burden of hospital expenses will be hanging over the heads of direct family involved. The daily cost of intensive care in the United States ranges from two thousand to three thousand dollars a day ("Can Health Care Costs"). For most terminally ill patients, staying in an intensive care hospital room is a must. Because of this requirement, one can be assured that a patients medical bills will continually sky rocket upwards. Very few people can afford these outlandish expenses even with insurance, and can easily put one into enormous debt. If a patient doesn't have insurance, the outcome will become even more catastrophic. The argument could be made that if euthanasia is legalized, hospitals and doctors may be more inclined to preform physician-assisted suicide because of its money saving advantages and the chance to keep intensive care units more readily available for future patients. To refute this proposition one must ask them-self; would hospitals, made to better a patient's life in any way, shape or form, persuade the aspirations of the terminally ill just to convenience themselves as a whole? According to the medical oath taken by all doctors of medicine states, "I will not abuse my position...I shall never intentionally do or administer anything to the overall harm of my patient...I will assist my patients to make informed decisions that coincide with their own values and beliefs" ("Medical Oaths and Declarations"). These highly qualified doctors did much studying and training for one reason-to help others. To claim that these doctors would turn on their original intentions is outlandish. The legalization of euthanasia provides patients and families with economic security but also assures legalization will not compromise the moralities of the health care system we depend on currently due to these benefits.

A majority of the people who appose the legalization of euthanasia feel that it is inhumane. Since when has a death full of pain and suffering been more humane then a death compiled of friends, family, and comfort? Many anti-euthanasia activists claim that no physician has the right to play God by ending a human life. If this is their supporting claim against legalization, how come these same people are in favor of prolonging life through medicine? Doesn't the act of prolonging a life also involve playing God's role? It is the right of an individual to decide which action best suits them. If one has the choice to fight for life, one should also have the choice to die in comfort. Euthanasia should be an option for every critical condition patient. It is a personal right to determine what actions are most beneficial to oneself. What ever the choice may be, it must be respected.

The legalization of euthanasia has been debated for many years and has much controversy regarding its morality in every country world wide. Both anti-euthanasia and pro-euthanasia supporters have strong allegations regarding the topic, and are able to provide many supporting details to back it up. Euthanasia must be legal in the United States because our country was built on the belief that one should be granted the right of personal choice. When the option of euthanasia can not be executed due to it being illegal, thousands of citizens are not able to act upon our constitutional rights, therefore the terminally ill who want to pass must instead endure overwhelming sorrow and suffering. Even though many terminally ill patients avoid the path of physician-assisted suicide, the option must be available for those who choose else wise. Therefore we must pass a law legalizing euthanasia throughout the United States. As long as euthanasia is illegal in the United States, American citizens will have continued to be robbed of our guaranteed right concerning "Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

