Euthanasia has been a controversial topic in time's past. Although a familiar concept when applied to ending the suffering of pets, human euthanasia is still a fairly untapped subject. I am interested in researching this topic because it directly correlates to a basic human right: the right to die. Americans seemingly have every kind of freedom there is but that. Individuals can choose where to live, what job to pursue, and what to say- yet having control of how or when they die is still illegal in many states in America. The criminalization of euthanasia goes against my value of humans having the freedom to choose. I strongly disagree with forcing terminally ill patients to lay in their death bed until nature takes its course. If euthanasia was legalized, much of their pain and suffering would be minimized. In much of the arguments against legalizing euthanasia, family members and physicians are brought up. However, in retrospect, it is the patients' lives that is at stake. While there might be legal complications at the time of death, I believe that the patients' interest must be put first. Although I have not have first-hand experience with terminally ill patients, there has been multiple media coverage on patients asking for euthanasia and I have kept up with their stories. 


This source is told from a point of view of a terminally ill cancer patient. She explicitly states that to her, accelerating the dying process should not be correlated with suicide. As a cancer patient, she is glad that euthanasia activists are bringing attention to the issue of euthanasia legalization. She backs up her point with evidence from the action taken by the Nazi of "mercy killing," Andrew's Solomon's story about his terminally mother, and terminal cancer patients like Brittany Maynard and Christy O'Donnell. This article emphasizes the values held by the terminally ill. She mentions the value of life and the importance of preserving it but rebuts it with evidence that support euthanasia. She supports the fact that life is precious, but in her and others' circumstance, it is no longer worth living. This article was published in the New York Times so it has credibility of a renowned journal to back it up. There is of course bias as it is written from one person's personal experience and mostly states only her opinion. However, as she is a terminally ill patient, her opinion is valued in the course of discussing euthanasia.


This article tells the story of Brittany Maynard, a euthanasia advocate who made her personal story a national headline. She was diagnosed with brain cancer and learned that the only treatment available was extremely aggressive and will cause personality changes. Appalled by these side effects, she made the decision to move her and her family to Oregon as Oregon is one of the five states that has legalized euthanasia. However, even though she qualified the criteria for euthanasia, they had to go through a complicated process of establishing residency. At the end, she says that she is happy with her decision because is gave her a sense of peace and power during such fearful times. Because this article is written by Brittany Maynard, it holds primarily her interest of going through with euthanasia. She compares the consequences of going through the harsh treatment that can ultimately worsen her quality of life or going through with euthanasia, which gives her the power to end her life. She talks about the important value that euthanasia allows her to go through her remaining days seeking joy in life. This article was published in the opinion section of CNN's website. CNN is a credible news source, therefore it confirms the accuracy of this story. Bias is present because it is told from one person's point of view and does not have any hard evidence. However, it does give the readers a firsthand look into the life of a patient going through with euthanasia.


This article, written by Dr. Fitzpatrick, goes against the legalization of euthanasia, using Belgium as an example. Its primary evidence is that almost half of the euthanasia processes in Belgium are carried out illegally. Another problem is that nurses are doing them instead of doctors. However, even with these problems present, Dr. Jan Bernheim (a leading promoter of euthanasia), thinks that euthanasia should be extended to children. Fitzpatrick refutes Bernheim's viewpoint and strongly encourage the reader to not support him. The value of life, especially children's ability to make decisions about their lives is discussed and highlighted in this article. The author believes that no pain should ever be intolerable to where an individual would want to kill themselves. He also states that children, whose minds are not fully developed, should not be handed the power to end their lives. This article is published on CNN's website. CNN is a credible news source. The author of this article is Dr. Kevin Fitzpatrick, an anti-euthanasia advocate. Based on his experience in the fieldwork of euthanasia, he has a fair amount of credibility. He also uses evidence provided by studies to back up his argument. However, his views are one-sided. 

This research topic is arguable because it has two sides that hold their own values and stakes. The primary argument over the legalization of euthanasia is the power of an individual to end his own life versus the value of life itself and the power that comes with ending someone's life. Many terminally ill patients have spoken on this subject, arguing for the pain and suffering they have gone through and their reasoning behind wanting to go through with euthanasia. Those against euthanasia have brought up statistics in which the legalization of this procedure has led to many illegal and questionable actions. Although I can understand the concerns of those who oppose euthanasia, I still advocate for the legalization of euthanasia for the peace it brings to the patients. Reading the stories of terminally ill patients has strengthened this opinion as I can understand more of the pain and suffering they have to go through. 
