Euthanasia is known as assistant suicide that is distributed by medical personnel. It has become a topic of such controversial views because people feel that it is morally wrong. This topic is very interesting to me because I am currently studying to be in the medical field as a Nurse Anesthetist who deals primarily with distributing anesthesia to patients. At the end of the day someone is dying and this topic causes a lot of controversy because it plays a role in what is defined as ethical, right or wrong. With my personal beliefs, I am religious but I feel that you cannot control someone who wants to end their own life and who wants to be relieved from their "pain." So the topic of Euthanasia does not bother my ethics, values or anything of that sort. With euthanasia, I do not have any personal experience regarding this topic. I've heard about it in the news and it interested me but other than that there is nothing. I feel qualified to write this paper because I am researching these topics thoroughly and also I am currently taking pre-nursing classes and learning about diseases which may potentially cause a person to want to have "Physician Assisted Suicide". 

For my first informative source, "Euthanasia: Murder or Not: A Comparative Approach

Two men discuss what they label as one of the most controversial topics of medicine. Their central claim is that people today are debating over if Euthanasia is the right or wrong thing and also if it should become legal. They compare places where some focus on the religious aspects of euthanasia as being wrong to kill a person versus the people who focus on the idea that it is okay as long as people follow the guidelines required from the doctor. These two men's major values stem from showing the reader how varying law forces take different matters in different ways. Their point in this is to try to make a compromise between the two sides of the arguments to prevent unnecessary confrontations between the places that may or may not make this law legal. These authors were creditable because they are faculty of Law at a university in Kraguijevac. Also, they are more on the legal sides of Euthanasia but they are still creditable enough to talk about it since Euthanasia has to do with legal affairs. Also their sources are mainly book and medical journals instead of social media views, which shows that it was not partially sided.

My second source was a sided view on euthanasia. This man was for Euthanasia but he had his reasons to be which were very persuasive. His central claim was for everyone to realize that this debate is coming up soon and we have to be open to this discussion. He also focused his article on the aspects of dementia. He said that some people want to put Euthanasia in their living will incase they ever develop Alzheimer's. So his values developed from the fact that when these people get older they will have no way to speak up for themselves. But, with putting Euthanasia in their living will he feels that at least they will have been able to plan for their life before losing their memory. For bias and creditability, the author deliberately showed that he was bias for Euthanasia and he saw that there was nothing wrong with letting people chose to die. Also, he was a doctor who works at an "Exit Clinic" where they discus end-of-life care. So he has a lot of creditability when it comes to the medical topic. He did not really have any sources since this was an opinionated article on CNN.

My last source was an informative medical Euthanasia book. The author central claim regards explaining the different types of Euthanasia: Involuntary, Voluntary, Non-voluntary, and mercy. She goes into details about the sides of pro-life versus pro-choice. With her details, she explains that both sides have an argument whether it comes from religious aspects or from your rights as a person. She also hopes by her explain these things that people can also come to a common ground. Her value is that the right to live should be considered as well as the right to have a choice with the matter of life. When I searched what the authors' creditability was, I found out that she is a professor at a university in Law and Sociology so she is educated in interpreting the law of Euthanasia. Also, her sources are creditable because she sources New York Times, and also specific bills that were not passed.

My research question is arguable because people are debating if this is ethically correct or if people should be able to infringe on someone's right of liberty as a citizen. With the question, no one can determine what is right or wrong by a yes or no answer. My sources did not disagree with each other because two of the three were just informative with no apparent bias. The two informative sources did agree with the fact that the big debate comes from the idea of religion versus having a choice in the matter. The opinionated source completely placed me into the category of saying people should have a choice in the matter. It changed my perspectives by using Alzheimer's as a supporting factor because no one knows what they would do if they were put in that situation of constant suffering. With answering my research question, I may need to narrow it down to "Should Euthanasia be a Legal Law in the U.S. if People Meet the Certain Requirements" which includes diseases such as Alzheimer's that could perhaps create a common ground for everyone.

