The right to die is one of the most complicated and highly controversial discussions of the medical world in this time period. Euthanasia is described as "any treatment initiated by a physician with the intent of hastening the death of another human being who is terminally ill and in severe pain or distress" (Caddell 1672).  This topic has risen to high discussion in these recent times because people are questioning the code of ethics. The nurses code of ethics says it is not ethical for a nurse to engage in euthanasia (Lachman, ?). So should a doctor or nurse be able to do the complete opposite of what they are employed too, or is it okay because they are "saving" a person?  People also are feeling that a person controlling their own death is very scary and intimidating. But some are going against that and saying, how can you tell me what to do with my own body? Euthanasia is slightly different from physician-assisted suicide, which is why both are used interchangeably. PAS is when a doctor gives a patient drugs for them to do own their own but euthanasia means a doctor is physically distributing drugs into the patients body (Pereira).  At this moment there are three states that currently have physician-assisted suicide legal in their state governments: Oregon, Washington, Vermont, Montana, and New York. The purpose of euthanasia is not to give everyone who wants to commit suicide a free way out in life because that would simply lead to mistreatment. This is used for people with diseases with low quality of life measures, for example; not being able to move or to be able to do anything that is needed to survive. 

Euthanasia is broken down into two main classifications. The most commonly stigmatized classification is voluntary euthanasia. This type of euthanasia occurs when a patient deliberately asks a physician to end their life for various reasons (Campbell 242). And since involuntary is an antonym, it means to partake in something without your control (Campbell 242). It can be argued that there is not really a different between voluntary and involuntary euthanasia. According to Neil Campbell, a senior legal counsel at the University of Calgary, " to be characterized as voluntary the patient must freely will that his or her life be ended ...  if the pain and suffering are by definition unbearable, then it seems clear enough that the decision to die is not freely chosen" (243). With that being said, Campbell is arguing that the person is involuntary driven to partake in euthanasia due to the fact that they are in pain.  Also euthanasia is branched into two more classifications: active euthanasia and passive euthanasia. Active refers to the actual use of a lethal drugs or other life-ending processes to carry out the procedure versus passive euthanasia referring to the process in which a person is withdrew from all medical care, basically leaving someone to die (McLachlan 766). 

Because we are guaranteed liberties in the United States of America, I have decided to join the side of being pro-choice. I feel that euthanasia should be legalized in all aspects of the United States and perhaps throughout the entire world. My number one explanation for choosing to support this cause is that we are guaranteed liberties and rights in the USA to do what we want to do to a certain extent. With this law becoming legal in the USA we could defeat so many barriers. The good outcomes of this include but are not limited to: giving people a choice to end their long-lasting suffering, reducing the cost health care for people who just let their family remain on a ventilator, perhaps being able to increase our supply of organs for use of organ transplant, and we can just let a person "die with dignity" as Brittany Maynard would say. 

Imagine growing older and eventually the doctor diagnoses you with a disease that cannot be cured at the moment, Alzheimer's. What would you do if someone in your mother fell to this disease? As our people age and some that develop this disease, it is heartbreaking to watch a love one basically lose mind and forget completely about who they are (Nitschke). To develop this disease, a person's "dignity and sense of self-- is slipping"(Nitschke). The legalization of euthanasia is a way to relieve all of the fear that comes with this disease. For example, right now if you could sign into your living will that if you were to develop Alzheimer's, that you wanted to participate in physician assisted suicide it would be an awesome tool. You would not have to worry about losing your dignity or suffering as a patient because you signed maybe thirty years ago that you don't want to suffer (Nitschke). Legalizing this law will give families road maps; "this inclusion would be a valuable pre-planning tool: 'if I do get dementia, at least the children will know what I want. I can now rest assured that my wishes not to live "like that" will be respected'"(Nitschke). These types of planning does not only just work for Alzheimer's and dementia but it also works for any other terminal disease that you may endure. Planning your death is something that could save your dignity in the long run.

Today there are many people who find out they need an organ transplant everyday. If we let the people who have incurable diseases participate in Euthanasia, we could save some of their vital organs and give them to people who are in need. This could help the person who is going to be euthanized and also the family because it would give them comfort and "may also provide some comfort to the donor and his (her) family, considering that the termination of the patient's life may somehow help other human beings in need for organ transplantation" (Olivier Detry et al. 915). Also the ideal that a person could go through the procedure of euthanasia and organ transplant at the same time provides more of a reason for euthanasia to be accepted legally and ethically (Olivier Detry et al. 915). This ends a person suffering and also saves more than one person's life. It is a win/win situation. There was a lady who participated in this in Belgium. She suffered from an accident that affected her brain stem, which evidently paralyzed majority of her body except for her eyelid (Olivier Detry et al. 915). She decided give her organs that still functioned well to people while she could also relieve her suffering at the same time. With doing so she saved three lives; "currently, more than 1 year later, all three recipients are enjoying a normal graft functions" (Olivier Detry et al. 915). This process is great because the death of one person can help others who need organs (Olivier Detry et al. 915).

Euthanasia helps save money in the long run in many aspects. One aspect is keeping a person on a ventilator is simple unnecessary unless a person is highly likely to return to conscious. Hospitals need space for other patients and for other hospitals needs. While a patient is on the ventilator it is costing a lot of money to the family and hospital. According to David Shaw, argues "a ventilator constitutes extraordinary treatment and that discontinuing ventilation is therefore acceptable" (Shaw, 520). Since a ventilator cannot per say help a person, basically it is just "prolonging the process of dying" (Shaw 521). If you are prolonging the process of dying in a hospital, you are wasting time and money, which is unnecessary. Another aspect is when you have a love one in a home where they must remain due to not be able to live and function by their self. The place in which they are staying is not free; it is actually very costly and expensive for the family. According to Margaret P. Battin, a philosophy professor, says, "there should be no obligation imposed on others to provide the care necessary for them to do so" (Battin, 59). This obligation is that some people fear developing Alzheimer's or other "incurable" diseases because they do not want to make their family care for them and they do not want to become a financial burden to anyone. 

Is it wrong that some people want to control their life because they do not want to been seen last in pain and misery? Brittany Maynard, an actual recipient of at age twenty-nine, Maynard was diagnosed with terminal brain cancer. After receiving the news she decided that she did not want to live anymore so she later became famous for becoming an actual recipient of physician-assisted suicide in Oregon, and she felt that there is nothing wrong with that scenario. She was able to decide where she wanted to die, which was in the comfort of her home. She said, " I will die upstairs in my bedroom I share with my husband" (CNN). Since she is taking her death in her own hand, she felt elated at the idea of that she did not have to die the way that her brain tumor would take her" (CNN). As her cancer got worst, she would feel even stronger about euthanasia. As she explains in "A New Video for my Friends," there was a time when she was having a seizure and she "remembered looking at her husband's face at one point and thinking I know this is my husband but I can't say his name" (Compassion Choices). Imagine that, suffering so much until you can't talk to the one you love. People who deal with these terminal illnesses and who cannot control their actions. Brittany Maynard was just a lady who wanted to die as a person who deserved respect and dignity.

The highlighted reasons above do explain why I am for the legalization of euthanasia but it is also important to acknowledge the opposite side. The people who are going again euthanasia usually fall into the category of being pro-life. Demetra Pappas, a professor at St. Francis College, mentioned that supporters of pro-life believe that "to phrase euthanasia and assisted suicide as a 'choice' issue undercuts vulnerable populations, who will be at risk of having very little choice at all and be manipulated into hastening the end of life" (xix). For the side of pro-life is understandable why they would argue against euthanasia. More of their reasons include religion aspects, the idea that families are pressuring their family members to die, and because they do not want people to abuse euthanasia if it becomes legal. 

Religion is a huge part in a lot of people's lives in the United States of America. Many people support the idea that God has given us life and it is not religious for us to try and take away our own life for any reasons. David P. Caddell, a former employee of the department of sociology at Seattle Pacific University alluded to the common feelings of the people in the United States. Most of the people describe themselves as Christian. Caddell says that, "the argument that God should decide who lives and who dies is paramount from this perspective" (1673). Also another common reason is that religious people feel as if the doctor roles in our lives may be too powerful; "the idea that the physician who engages in the practice of euthanasia is 'playing God' encourages the physician (or anyone else) to stay out of the dying process" (Caddell, 1673). When it comes to why this argument is not as effective, we must understand that though much of the united states are religious, not everyone is. We have some who support this, Caddell says, "those with self-perceptions which are less religious would tend to define death as a human problem to be managed by people" (1674). With that quote it is very important to understand that we must not impose blanket statements on everyone or assume everyone is religious.

Another problem many people have with euthanasia become legal around the entire United States is the idea that sometimes it is questionable if we are forcing people to want to lean towards euthanasia because they feel as if they are burdens. Kevin Fitzpatrick, a doctor who argues against euthanasia feels that, "disabled people, elderly people, adults made vulnerable by terminal and other illnesses, and now children are being told that their lives are not worth living" (Fitzpatrick). It is debatable that they say this but it is important to understand that no family member wants to see someone from their family in pain in agony. So they are not forcing and pressuring the people due too the fact that they bothering or burdening them but they are doing this because due to being able to feel better to know a people is not suffering anymore. It is easier to understand this in a more personal context, imagine if someone in your family or someone close to you is fighting to live every day but they hate it. You would not want to see anyone in that much pain and in constant depression. 

The opposing side does have very good reasons to argue against the legalization but for each of the scenarios, listed above, the side of pro-choice can use logic and reasoning of this common time period to argue against. Whether it is good or bad, despite the United States being built off of Christianity, our nation is becoming more and more secularized every day. 

Euthanasia has many benefits to the United States of America and the citizens who live here. But, like many things in the world, there are some flaws and controversial arguments against this process. We must, although, understand that these benefits outweigh the bad. If euthanasia were legalized, 1) we would be able to rid people of suffering, 2) reduce the cost of health care for families of the sufferers, 3) better our supply of organs for people who need transplants, and lastly 4) to be able to let someone take control of their lie and die as what common label "with dignity." This has so much use to people who need it; therefore this is not a statement to say everyone will abuse their right if it were legal. That would not be the case because the government would not let people who are just simply depressed be able to be euthanized. So, the "so what," answer to why this matters is because people need to be able to do what they want with their body. If it makes them feel special in the long run, why does ethics matter. Like Doctor Phillip Nitschke says, "Euthanasia: Hope you never need it, but be glad the option is there." Just the idea of having this as a background in case you have doubts of your future, for example, if something happens to put you into a vegetable state, may put a great deal of our citizens into a safe place. 

