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 to purposely end a person's life. In the United States it has become legal in some places such as Oregon, Washington, and Montana. I am currently studying nursing focusing on a career as a nurse anesthetist. A nurse anesthetist distributes and administers anesthesia to patients. This relates closely to the legalization of euthanasia because a nurse anesthetist help distribute medicine to patients through IVs. 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 and suffering due to something incurable. I value God controlling our death and our life, but I understand that not everyone feels that way and that they should have a say. Also, our country was built on the lines of separation of church and state; therefore we should not make laws based on our religion. So, the topic of euthanasia does not bother my ethics, values or anything of that sort. Personally, I have no experience with euthanasia. I've heard about it in the news and it interests me but other than that there is nothing. I feel qualified to write this paper because I am researching these topics thoroughly. Moreover, I am currently taking pre-nursing classes; where I've learned about diseases, which may cause a person to want to end their life by physician-assisted suicide.  

Bozidar BanoviC and Veljko Turanjanin, two members of the faculty of Law at a university in Kraguijevac, wrote  "Euthanasia: Murder or Not: A Comparative Approach." These 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 euthanasia as right or wrong and if it should become legal. They compare places where some focus on the religious aspects of euthanasia as being wrong to kill a person instead the ones who find it okay if the doctor's approve. These two men's major values stem from how varying law forces take matters of euthanasia's morality in different ways. The point of this essay is to make a compromise between the two sides of euthanasia to prevent unnecessary confrontations between the states that may or may not make this law legal. They are more on the legal sides of Euthanasia but they are still credible enough to talk about it since Euthanasia has to do with legal affairs as well. Also their sources are mainly book and medical journals instead of social media views, which shows that it was not partially sided or extremely biased.

My second source was a sided view on euthanasia by a doctor named Phillip Nitschke. He was biased for the legalization of euthanasia because he valued having the options just in case something comes up later in life. The author's 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 and mental functions. For bias and creditability, the author deliberately showed that he was biased 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 by a lady named Demetra Pappas who studies Law and Sociology. So, her major focus of Euthanasia falls more on the legal side. The author central claim involves informing others on the different types of euthanasia, which is: 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 explaining 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. Her sources are credible 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. 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.

