Human Euthanasia is the act or practice of killing or permitting the death of hopelessly sick or injured individuals in a relatively painless way for reasons of mercy.  Most states consider this illegal because of ethical reasons, such as it being against the word and will of God, it weakens society's respect for the sanctity of life, and it exposes vulnerable people to the pressure of ending their life. However, there are a few states that allow doctors to go through with this procedure because they have made it legalized.  I am interested in this topic because I had a great grandmother who had Alzheimer's and at the end of her life she was in great pain and could not perform simple tasks such as eating, drinking, or using the restroom by herself.  Euthanasia would have made it easier on my family emotional-wise, and easier on her pain-wise.  I am intrigued by reasons for which euthanasia is legal/illegal, and I am writing about this topic to voice my opinion as well as inform others on the benefits of making human euthanasia legal.  By researching this topic, it has caused me to question my values because in a sense, whoever goes through with this procedure is taking their own life, and I do not believe that is morally okay.  Although I do not believe that killing someone is morally right, I do believe that euthanasia is acceptable in certain circumstances such as being terminally ill and being in immense amounts of pain. Human euthanasia has caused a great deal of controversy because of ethical reasons, however it should be made legal because there are more positive aspects to it than negative.

The first article I chose is called "10 reasons why Euthanasia should be Legal Everywhere".  The article gives ten positive reasons as to why euthanasia should be legal everywhere and then uses evidence to back it up.  For example, it says that in the Netherlands, before euthanasia was legal, there were 0.8% of people who were being humanely euthanized without consent.  Once euthanasia was made legal, that percentage dropped down to 0.4%, showing that making euthanasia legal could actually "save lives", meaning that a smaller amount of people would be euthanized without consent.  The major interest in this article is to make euthanasia legal and it targets those who have loved ones who are terminally ill.  It brings forth many good arguments and causes the reader to truly think about the evidence provided in the article.  The author is a writer, making them no expert on the topic.  It is evident that he has done a decent amount of research, though, making him more credible.  There is clear bias in this article because it is arguing for euthanasia, but there are some areas in the article where he presents counter arguments and then rebuts them with evidence.  

The second article is an article is from a website called ProCon, and it has no bias because it gives the pros and cons of having euthanasia legalized.  It gives quotes from doctors who have gone through with humanely euthanizing their patients, people who have had loved ones euthanized, people who are terminally ill, and it also gives laws that are in place today that make euthanasia illegal. The major value/interest of this article is to provide both sides of the arguments of euthanasia and to show true first-hand stories of how it can be a good thing or a bad thing.  This article values the public's opinion as well as a law standpoint on this topic.  While this article provides both sides of the argument, it seems more biased towards the argument side of euthanasia being illegal.  For the illegal argument side, the article gives more factual evidence and more law-based evidence to back up their side.  On the legal side, there are more first-hand stories and opinions on euthanasia becoming legal than there is actual factual evidence. 

The third and final article, from the National Institute of Health, is about making euthanasia legalized and it is from the standpoint of a professor of medical ethics.  The professor tells the story of an elderly lady who was terminally ill and in pain and was denied the right to die, so she had to die a slow and painful death.  The author then goes on to explain how doctors can be held reliable for helping a patient die such as not giving them their daily medicines anymore, overdosing them on pain medication, etc.  From a legal standpoint, the doctor can get into much trouble from doing these things because he is doing them without consent of the family or without any documents signed that allow the patient to go through with humane euthanasia. What the author views as valuable in this article is that the public needs to understand that euthanasia is purely the patient's choice, and doctors cannot make that decision, merely so that the doctor will not be held reliable for the patient's death.  She is also interested in letting the reader know that any sort of awareness of euthanasia can help tremendously in allowing a law to be passed to legalize it.  The article is clearly biased because the writer is for euthanasia and does not provide an argument for why others think that euthanasia should be illegal. She is a very reliable writer because she is educated in medical ethics and specializes in euthanasia.  

This research question of legalizing euthanasia is arguable because some could argue that euthanasia is unethical and should be illegal. Some agreements between these sources are that people have the right to choice and have the right to die with dignity (meaning that they are for legalizing euthanasia).  The article that shows both pros and cons of legalizing euthanasia clearly shows some disagreements on the cons side such as that just because someone has the right to choice doesn't mean that they can end their life if they so please.  The different perspectives of the sources make my opinion stronger that euthanasia should be legalized.  Understanding both sides of it is very important, but I feel strongly that the arguments for making euthanasia legal are more clearly put and make more sense than the ones that want to make it illegal.  I believe that my research question does not need to be revised because my paper can be clearly focused on reasons why euthanasia should be legalized without going off topic.
