As of now, human euthanasia is legal in the Netherlands, Ireland, Belgium, Columbia, and Luxembourg.  All five of these countries have already experienced some type of negative affects from allowing doctors to perform active euthanasia.  Euthanasia is when one knowingly allows another person to die under medical circumstances.  There are different types of euthanasia, one being active and the other being passive.  "Active euthanasia occurs when the medical professionals, or another person, deliberately do something that causes the patient to die" (BBC).  

While passive euthanasia is when "the patient dies because the medical professionals either don't do something necessary to keep the patient alive, or when they stop doing something that is keeping a patient alive" (BBC).  Active euthanasia is usually "a poison, or overdoes of pain-killers or sleeping pills" (PregnantPause) and passive euthanasia is when a life support machine is turned off or when life-extending drugs are no longer given.  The main question that is usually proposed is if there is a difference between killing someone, and letting someone die.  The act of murder is one of the most detrimental crimes overall because it is unjust to take someone's life no matter what the circumstance.  A doctor does not control when their patient dies, they can just simply withhold treatment and allow them pass naturally.  If there is absolutely nothing else you can do to benefit the person's life, letting them die would be the best solution.  People who are in favor of active euthanasia will argue that the patient does not deserve to be in pain if we have medicine to relieve them of that.  If a doctor is doing their job correctly, the majority of patients should not feel severe pain, which would be the reason why they would no longer want to live.  There are some cases where the doctors cannot do anything, but those cases are very rare, and not worth bringing active euthanasia into America.  If there is no other solution for the patient than to just let them wait it out until the end, then that is all one can do.  It should not be the doctor's decision to decide when it is time for a patient to die.  Most religions in America believe that God is the only person who knows when someone is going to die, and it should stay that way.  It is also feared that if active euthanasia is legalized it could become extremely common and can lead to more harmful practices in the medical field.  It is not right to start changing medical practices where doctors have to take the lives of patients who meet the requirements.  As of right now, doctors are there to help better patients' health.  If active euthanasia were to become legal there would have to be another filed of work for people who agreed with the concept of it, and who wanted to perform it.  It is tough to have to watch a family member wait out the rest of their life knowing they are going to pass shortly; but there are medications to try and make it more painless and a better experience for the patient and the family members.  Active euthanasia should not be legalized in the United States because it goes against many religious beliefs, has a "slippery slope", it could set back the research done in the medical field, and it is morally wrong.

Around seventy percent of people in America are said to be Christians.  Christian faiths believe in God, and believe that he created life, so only he gets to decide when a life should end.  Because active euthanasia involves someone besides God taking one's life, most Christians, along with many other religions, do not support this idea.  Edgar R. Lee, a chairman of the churches commission on Doctrinal Purity said, "We simply feel that it is not our prerogative to end life" (PewResearchCenter).  Members of this church also stated that, "At the same time, the church allows that life need not be sustained at all costs when there is no hope for recovery. "We leave room for people to [reject] artificial means of life support," Lee says. Indeed, he adds, the church "does not frown on" the use of pain medication to alleviate suffering, "even in cases where it might contribute to hastening death" (PewResearchCenter).  Everyone is considered an equal in Gods eyes.  Considering that, it would be wrong for one human being to be able to decide when another should no longer live.  There are many people who are not religious, or maybe some religions would support the concept of active euthanasia.  Active euthanasia is still murdering another person, and by the law in the United States, murder is considered illegal.  It devalues an individual's life.  Every person has a purpose here on Earth, and if their life is taken before expected, they could be losing valuable moments in their life; even if it is one of their last.  The concept of suicide, or murder, has never been accepted in America, so why would one agree with the concept of active euthanasia?  Suicide is said to be "the act or instance of taking one's own life voluntarily and intentionally" (Merriam-Webster).  Murder is "the unlawful premeditated killing of one human being by another" (dictionary.com).  If these two definitions were to be combined and the word "unlawful" is removed it would be very similar to the definition of active euthanasia.  It does not seem right that the United States would even consider legalizing something that is almost indistinguishable to suicide and murder.  

Active euthanasia is a very serious topic that obviously deals with life threatening circumstances.  There is a very "slippery slope" when talking about legalizing euthanasia.  What society would legally allow their citizens to murder each other?  As addressed earlier, active euthanasia and murder are extremely similar.  Once euthanasia is legalized there is no turning back; it will only get worse from there (Medscape).  It seems some what plausible to allow a few people to receive the treatment if they are in an extreme circumstance, but then what about the other people?  It is not fair to deny others the treatment, but say yes to some.  When it is first legalized only very extreme cases will be accepted.  As time goes on, the acceptance rate will become more and more lenient, allowing people who do not necessarily need the treatment to receive it.  An example is in the Netherlands where "the law permitting euthanasia and doctor-assisted suicide in that country has become steadily more permissive. At first, euthanasia was permitted only for the terminally ill who requested it, but then it was permitted for the chronically ill, for those whose suffering was psychological, and for incompetent patients, including children" (Benatar 206).  There is a very narrow line when trying to distinguish what patients' are allowed to receive the treatment, and what patients' cannot.  And if somehow it were to be legalized, with very strict regulations, they would keep getting modified as time went on.  There are a lot of elderly people who have to be constantly taken care of and cannot do anything on their own.  Right now that is just what has to happen, even if the person does not want all the help, it is necessary for them to live, so they are required to receive it.  Euthanasia is geared toward elderly people, but it could be very harmful for them.  If euthanasia is legalized, elderly people may no longer want to have to rely on their families or doctors to keep them alive, so they will request euthanasia hoping to not have to be in the way of everyone else.  Nursing homes are commonly frowned upon, so kids do not put their parents in them so they end up having to take the brunt of the duty to help them.  If a parent is at the point where they can no longer live life without assistance 24/7, they might start to learn towards the idea of euthanasia to not be a burden to anyone else.  That is just sad that the only reason they want to die could be they do not want to be a hassle to anyone anymore.  There comes a point in life where people accept that it is time for someone to pass, but the person should not feel guilted into ending their own life so they can relieve the people around them.  They might just be making a decision because they are having a bad day, and possibly the people around them are as well.  But this decision should not impact the rest of their life, their attitudes towards euthanasia could change the very next day.  

Research is so advanced today that legalizing euthanasia could hinder the progress of future research.  The reason technology in the medical field keeps improving is because they are trying to find a solution for every possible disease out there.  If death is a solution, why would people try to find cures for terminal illnesses?  It is definitely possible for a "terminal illnesses" to no longer be considered that one day.  There are many diseases that use to be extremely deadly, but now if one receives one vaccination when they are born they will most likely never even get the disease.  An example of a disease that was once very popular around the world, and effected many lives was tuberculosis.  "Tuberculosis infections began increasing in 1985, partly because of the emergence of HIV, the virus that causes AIDS. HIV weakens a person's immune system so it can't fight the TB germs. In the United States, because of stronger control programs, tuberculosis began to decrease again in 1993, but remains a concern" (Mayo Clinic).  As one can see things advance so frequently, and if death becomes a "treatment" the desire to find new medications and treatments will start to lessen because there will be no need for them if patients decide to end their life, rather than fight for it.  Yes, medical technology is extremely advanced but, people still do make mistakes.  Not everyone is perfect, not even doctors are.  A doctor can diagnose a patient with a terminal illness, but then notice a week later that he made a mistake in the tests, or the medications prescribed.  But if euthanasia is legalized, it is possible it could be too late for that patient.  The option of euthanasia could have been proposed to them already, and they could have agreed to it.  This goes back to the slippery slope argument.  Euthanasia will lead to more deaths than ever expected in a hospital because patients will start to believe that death is their only solution. 

People become doctors to help people, and better the health in society.  If a doctor loses a patient, they are usually upset, but they know they did absolutely everything they could to try and save the person's life.  Doctors practice by the "words of the International Code of Medical Ethics, which is: "A physician shall always bear in mind the obligation to respect human life"" (NHS).  As this code states, doctors are there to help protect and better the patient's life.  If euthanasia is legalized it could cause many problems between a patient and a doctor.  Patients could end up losing trust in their doctor because they do not think that they are doing everything possible to better their health.  There will now be the thought that they have just given up and do not want to take the time to find the best solution for them.  Euthanasia could make going to a doctor less personal because there could be a loss of hope, and the doctor may no longer have the drive to do absolutely everything they can.  Most people go to the same doctor for years and years because they trust that doctor to do the absolute best for their own health.  If the option of death is thrown in there, patients are not going to want to go to the doctor that chose to take one of their patients lives because they will fear that that will happen to them.  The doctor-patient relationship is the most important thing in the health field.  Most kids really have to like their doctors to agree to do most things during a check up; the topic of euthanasia will be talked about at school, and kids could take it the wrong way.  The word will get around and misinterpreted by kids who will not fully understand the concept, and they could think just going to the doctors might end up in the most severe end; active euthanasia.  This will cause more stress to parents because they will have to try to explain to their kids what exactly active euthanasia is, and why America allows it.  Overall, the health of society as a whole will end up dropping because patients will end up losing the trust that they had with their doctor.  Also, the amount of doctors might decline because they would fear taking someone's life.  There is a big difference if a doctor loses a patient naturally after doing everything possible, rather than taking the patients life because they do not think there is anything else that they could do.  No person should have to decide when it is time for someone's life to end; that is a very big responsibility to take on that most would not be comfortable with.  There will be some people who do feel comfortable with this topic, and agree with it.  A whole entire workforce will have to be created, and intense training to make sure it is done properly.  The time that will take before one is fully prepared to treat a patient, and the expense it will cost to go through the training will not be worth it, considering the other options already in place. 

The biggest argument people who are for active euthanasia is that letting someone die is more harmful than killing someone because they are not suffering through pain as long as they would have been.  If a doctor is doing their job correctly patients' should not usually feel any unbearable pain.  Yes, pain and discomfort does occur, that is normal, but if the patient is experiencing an unbearable pain that makes them think dying is the only solution, doctors are able to fix that with the right prescription.  Considering that this argument is valid, no one can argue that it is more painful for the patient to wait for a natural death.  Death does take time, and people might not want to have to wait it out, but that is not a good enough excuse to have a doctor end ones' life.  There was a case in Russia where an artist went blind and euthanasia was legalized there.  That artist requested euthanasia because he no longer saw the point to live.  This artist would not be the only one who wants out because of an issue they can overcome.  Right now, a patient can request to no longer receive treatment, and go home to be with their family to have an enjoyable last few days of their life, and to not have to be stuck waiting to die in a depressing hospital room.  No doctor can legally just discharge the patient and let them suffer those last few days without prescribing or suggesting pain relief drugs.  The point of those last days, and the reason why this happens so frequently is because the doctors make the patient as comfortable as possible.  The patient is given medications that will take away the pain, and there are also anxiety medications if the patient is fearing the concept of death.  They are there to help patients; even if they know death is going to eventually happen.  The doctor is there for them throughout the whole entire process, even when there is nothing else they can do.  They are there for moral support and to make this experience as painless as possible.  Considering that this does happen, why would anyone need euthanasia?  Death can be expensive, but it is someone's life on the line.  Most people should have life insurance which could help cover the expenses while the patient is receiving treatment before dying.  People should show enough respect for the person going through this that they will at least allow them to take their last breaths on their own.  

America has gone this far without the practice of active euthanasia, so legalizing it would not be necessary for the medical field.  "There is a constitutional right to refuse medical treatments and even have a proxy exercise that refusal, while, by a vote of 9 to 0, the Court clearly stated that there is no constitutional right for either euthanasia or PAS. There is also a moral distinction" (Emanuel).  In the quote, Emanuel is proving that the court agrees that active euthanasia is morally wrong and should not be legalized.  He uses the term physician-assisted suicide (PSA) instead.  The countries that have already legalized active euthanasia have already started to have cases similar to the ones discussed in this paper.  The slippery slope argument is a common characteristic within these countries as well.  There have been cases where a person has minor health issues, so they no longer want to live and request euthanasia.  Legalizing euthanasia in America will be more harmful to society than beneficial.  The only pro of legalizing euthanasia is that patients could choose when to end their own life.  People already do that, it is called suicide, now they would just have a doctor doing it for them. The issue is way too conflicting to be legalized here anytime soon.  Religious values will get involved, along with the topic that doctors should not be able to decide when to take ones' life.  Also medical technology is too advanced for patients to suffer to the point they would rather die.  People do make mistakes; some make multiple a day.  A doctor can misdiagnose a patient, and if euthanasia is legalized there can be a "it's too late now" phrase which will not let the doctor fix their mistake because the patient has already passed away.  If active euthanasia ever becomes legalized in the United States, it will clearly show how destructive this decision will be to society.  

