Although proven to be a controversial topic among many medical professionals, the argument for legalizing the practice of euthanasia, or "mercy killing," cannot be properly argued without first defining what it is, as well as the different types of euthanasia. Euthanasia is defined as "the act or practice of killing or permitting the death of hopelessly sick or injured individuals (as persons or domestic animals) in a relatively painless way for reasons of mercy." A great example of euthanasia commonly practiced in today's society would be the act of "putting down" a beloved animal by means of painless, lethal injection. This "mercy killing," by definition would be considered active euthanasia  The reason this is done is to end the life of an animal that is suffering from incredible pain, and because of technological and medical advances, veterinarians are able to end an animal's life in a fast and painless manner. Although ending any life is never the first solution, if after doing the very best to make a suffering animal comfortable through means of medication or other therapies, most veterinarians agree that it would be in the animal's best interest to end its suffering by being put down. (Lerner) It is crucial to note that this is a last resort and up to the owner of the animal to decide whether or not euthanasia is the best option. However, after exhausting all other methods to alleviate pain and suffering, most choose active euthanasia. This "mercy killing" is done for the good of the animal, and is not only a legal practice, but is also widely accepted throughout society. Although sad, it is not done for our own benefit, but for the animal's. 

 This then begs the question: Why should we view human euthanasia any differently than animal euthanasia? If a person is suffering from a terminal illness and is in incredible pain, how is it that it is not morally, socially or legally accepted as much as animal euthanasia is? Should it not be accepted even more so because of our human ability to vocalize our feelings, opinions, and beliefs? Especially when it directly pertains to our own lives?  Although these are all important questions to ask, it is obvious that human euthanasia is not quite as simple as animal euthanasia due to moral, ethical, medical, religious, and legal complications. However, with all such complications in mind, I am going to argue in favor of legalizing euthanasia by examining a combination of medical, legal, moral and religious reasons. Euthanasia in hospitals should be legal under certain circumstances, as it is should be considered not only a person's Advanced Directive, but an exercise of their natural rights. A medical professional should not be allowed to refuse a patient under such dire circumstances this type of care, regardless of that medical professional's personal beliefs. It is clearly written and stated in The Declaration of Independence that each man has the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. These are unalienable rights that cannot be taken away from him, and that the government is ordered to respect and protect. Just as a man has these rights during life, he is also entitled to these same rights at the very end of it. It is important to respect and adhere to someone's dying wishes. A suffering, terminally ill person should be granted the option to choose how and when he or she chooses to die, and thanks to modern medicine, euthanasia should be an option that is available for the patient that is eligible for it.

Before being able to choose a side of any argument, one must first be well-informed on the topic at hand, as well as what each side believes. Therefore it is very important to understand the different types of euthanasia and how each is practiced. There are two types of euthanasia: active, or "negative" euthanasia versus passive, or "positive" euthanasia. (Wilkinson) In both active and passive euthanasia there is also voluntary and involuntary euthanasia. Using the terms positive and negative rather than passive and active suggest that one is good and one is bad, but there is no such thing. They are simply two different forms of euthanasia, but both approaches ultimately result in death. Active euthanasia "involves the use of treatments designed to promote death sooner than would otherwise be expected." (Dixon) An example of active euthanasia would be a doctor administering a lethal injection to a terminally ill patient at the final stages of his life in order to end his pain and suffering.

Passive euthanasia is the "failure to use therapies that would prolong life in a patient with a terminal illness." (Garrard) Many types of passive euthanasia are commonly practiced today. For instance, a woman diagnosed with a terminal illness, like cancer, has the option to undergo chemo or radiation therapy as well as whatever else is at her disposal in order to fight a disease that will at some point kill her. Although her doctor will no doubt recommend some sort of treatment, it is her choice whether or not she accepts. Just as she has the right to deny treatment for her terminal illness, there are also many who decide to refuse life saving treatments even before something happens to them that would require this. CPR, and an AED, are two examples of life-saving alternatives if someone's heart were to stop. However, those who are considered "DNR", or "Do Not Resuscitate", make the decision while they are alive and healthy that if their heart were to stop beating they would not want anyone to perform CPR or use an AED to resuscitate them. This is a form of passive euthanasia as it is the failure to provide care that may knowingly save someone's life. (Chen) However, choosing to be "DNR" is also a right that every adult is entitled to under something known as advanced directives. Advanced directives work similarly to that of a will. It is a written works as well as an on-going conversation with one's medical primary care to discuss the "what-if" case scenarios before they happen. Becoming DNR is an example of a "what-if" case scenario that must be decided beforehand to ensure that the person's wishes are respected and properly carried out. Advance directives are also only considered legitimate if it is clear that at the time the person made this decision, he was in his right state of mind. It is also important to understand that advanced directives are not suggestions, but commands that must be legally carried out and respected. Just as a will is a legal document that is to be respected and properly carried out after death, advanced directives work the same way. So, why then is euthanasia not considered to be an advanced directive? Should it not be just as respected as someone who chooses to be a DNR patient or someone who refuses treatment for an illness? 

Although medical professionals all can agree on what is passive versus active euthanasia, the moral and ethical argument against it seems to only come about when dealing with active euthanasia, or "physician-assisted suicide." (Dixon) Many believe that actively administering a form of lethal injection with the intention to end someone's life is morally and ethically wrong. However passive euthanasia, is not viewed as morally wrong as active euthanasia is. Although there is a difference between passive and active euthanasia; simply put, they are two different approaches that ultimately achieve the same result. Those who argue against the use of active euthanasia due to moral and ethical concerns would argue that active and passive euthanasia are very different, but if they ultimately achieve the same result, death, are they not the same? The opposing side would say no, and that active euthanasia cannot be justified as it is knowingly ending a life, and many medical professionals that strongly oppose active euthanasia do so because of either strong religious views or personal moral conflicts. It is something that they feel they cannot personally do as it is against what they believe in, but this is selfish and ultimately not their choice. In this case, doctors are not taking the patient's wishes or natural rights into account. If a patient were to refuse medical treatment for a terminal illness, even though a doctor may strongly recommend treatment, that doctor would not be able to force them to undergo treatment. And although a doctor may not agree with that person's choice, they must legally respect it. Active euthanasia can be viewed in this same way. Although a doctor may not agree that it is the best option, if a terminally ill patient had exhausted all other options and was in their final stages of life with a clear mind, the choice of physician-assisted suicide is up to only the patient, and the doctor should have to legally respect that person's choice.

"But legalizing euthanasia and assisted suicide leads to suicide contagion." "But euthanasia is a rejection of the importance and value of human life." These are just two examples of some of the arguments against euthanasia, and should be carefully considered as they are valid concerns. However it is important to ask yourself the question, "Who is it that decides the fate of another person?" This tends to be where those against euthanasia discuss the religious opposition. (Traina) There are many different religions, therefore there will be many different views of why euthanasia is right or why it is wrong. In general, most religions are against euthanasia as a whole. Although there are different reasons for this, as each religion has slight differences in what they believe. For Roman Catholics, they do not believe that euthanasia is right for it is a person playing the hand of God, and by choosing to end their lives they are interfering with God's plans for them and their soul. While Jewish persons believe instead that is it not write because it is manipulating, or "speeding up" the dying process, which according to their religious beliefs is not write because a person cannot determine the moment of their death. It is true that all religious arguments are valid, but it is important to understand that the only religious belief that really matters in a situation like that is that of the patients. There is a clear separation of church and state that exists in the United States, and it is the job of not only the government, but of the medical professional teams to ensure that this separation remains. (Tsai) The job of a doctor or other medical professional is to put aside his own personal beliefs and instead respect his patient's religious views and dying wishes even if it directly opposes his own.  If a doctor has strong religious opposition that hinders his ability to perform a physician-assisted suicide for an eligible patient that wishes to do so, it is that doctor's responsibility to carry that order out. For not only is it the job of a doctor to care for a patient, but also to inform them of all their options as well as ensuring their safety, comfort and well-being. Therefore he should be able to put aside all personal beliefs in order to do his job correctly.

There are a multitude of reasons as to why or why not euthanasia should be legalized. It is something that many people feel strongly about one way or another, but it is the healthy and the living who have the most to say about it. Many times those who argue against such a practice argue how morally wrong, sinful, or damaging it may be. However, I believe the real reason why so many are against it is because people are so terrified of death. The only reason hospitals, medicine, and healthcare professionals exist is because we our constantly trying to fight death, and prolong life. Eventually everyone will die, it is a natural process and is the final part of human life, and no matter how hard we fight to prolong life and avoid death it is unavoidable and inevitable. However, the unknown and permanence of death can be scary, which is why it is something we fiercely fight to avoid and conquer. It is this constant fear of death that causes us to avoid all potential dangers, and shield ourselves from situations that may put us in harms way. And although we know it is eventually coming, death is still always unexpected. For most, they do not know when or how they will die, but for those who are suffering from a terminal illness death is imminent. And until faced with that situation, no one is able to judge how they would handle it. 

While many people at the end of life, whether it be a terminally ill patient or a sick elderly person, make peace with death. It is almost always the living that end up struggling the most. And it is most times for selfish reasons that we encourage people to prolong their lives for as long as they can. We don't want someone we love to "give-up" their fight against cancer, or not try every possible treatment or therapy in order to "save themselves". But as much as we want to, we cannot make that decision for another person. Each man and woman is entitled to his or her own rights to life, and no government, institution, or individual can take that right away. Although definitely controversial, in its simplest form, euthanasia is just another option for those who choose to take as much control over their life in their final days. It can be not only physically painful, but emotionally draining to go through what so many terminally ill patients endure. Sometimes those who are in their final days of life are essentially helpless, as they can no longer do basic things for themselves. Euthanasia, if legalized, regulated, and properly discussed between patient and primary care, is an option that under certain circumstances should be made available to those in their final stages of life. It is a choice that is up to the dying, and not the living. It is a right to life that must be respected. 

