Euthanasia, defined as the painless killing of a patient suffering from an incurable and painful disease or in an irreversible coma, is a controversial topic that can be discussed largely as a burden to society because of its impact on the doctors, families, and people involved in the process. As medicine evolves it is becoming widely disputed as beneficial to society. Research in the benefit of euthanasia is interesting because it is important to understand how people are going through pain and how it may affect their life and their families. As a student wanting to go into the medical field, it is important to understand the options and ways that this practice is used, and also the positives and negative affects it has on society as a whole. My personal beliefs and values support that this should be legal in certain circumstances, as well as be assessed on a case-to-case basis. I have done extensive research in searching for positive outcomes and stories where this has occurred in a successful way. This research is important in qualifying myself to discuss this topic. 

"The Impact of Euthanasia on Society" is an informative that website discusses how medical research would be negatively affected by the legalization of euthanasia. This website also discusses the ways that doctor patient relationships would be strained in the event that euthanasia was an option. If a patient believes that the doctor will eventually just give up on helping them get better or feel comfortable and just offer euthanasia, they may not feel as supported. There is also a great fear that the "right to die" may change into a duty to die or a duty to kill for doctors. It is extremely hard as well to regulate whether or not voluntary euthanasia may become non-voluntary. There is supporting evidence that the author believes compassion will be altered in these situations, causing doctors, family members and friends to feel guilt after performing this task. This way of life-ending care may also be due to society become brutalized in the recent years. This website shows credible doctors and authors discussing the impacts on society, but most facts and examples were taken from a book in which lists reasons why the practice should not be legalized such as moral and pressures from families. This leads to bias and also possibly leaves out other statistics and facts that may support a positive image of the issue. 

Withdrawing care and euthanasia are two widely different practices of life-ending care and this article, "Withdrawing Life-Support and Physician's Assisted Suicide", discusses the differences on how both may be effective. This article mentions that euthanasia is a state-regulated issue, and that there is no "prohibition for or against physicians assisted suicide". This article discusses specific cases in which euthanasia was legalized; such as in Oregon in which it had a specific scope like 6 months to live, with only medication prescribed, and many other very specific reasons. Although euthanasia is not becoming legalized by the Supreme Court, it is legal to refuse care/life support, even though this may not help terminally ill patients or patients with high amounts of pain and a low quality of life. There does not seem to be bias in this article as its author is a certified doctor who states facts on both sides of the argument, while supporting both with cases and specific examples. 

The last article, "Euthanasia would hurt doctors and society" could be used as a counter-argument to the positive impact of this care on society. This article discusses not only the impact this may have on people at an individual level, but how it may harm or benefit the government and society as a whole. This author, Margaret Somerville, believes that legalizing this care would de-value the respect for human life. It is important to understand that health care and hospitals support values of society as a whole to provide care and safety for patients. Euthanasia takes away the caring aspect of medicine, and burden doctors and nurses, and replaces it with teaching an entirely new process of how one may need to kill a patient. This also goes against the Hippocratic Oath that doctors must take. The oath is where all doctors must promise to do no harm intentionally to a patient, and always try their best to cure what they are trying to. This author even goes as far to say that physicians should not need to be responsible for this type of life-ending care. This author, Margaret Somerville, has extensively researched euthanasia and its impact on society, as well as ethics of other types of care. Although this article seems bias, there are straight facts supporting both sides. 

This research question is one of the most controversial topics in that of medicine in today's society. It is extremely arguable in that each person discussing the situation will have a different response. It can also be argued for or against in a multitude of ways. There are several agreements and disagreements in regards to the research conducted, stating that euthanasia will potentially harm doctors or all involved, or that euthanasia can cause doctors to feel more helpful and fulfilled. As research and conducting of this research question continues, there are several arguments and points brought up that may persuade myself to change how I see the affects of euthanasia on all involved. I do not think that the research question needs to be revised, but possibly switched to the other side, whereas it would say "How is the legalization of euthanasia a negative benefit to society" because there seems to be much more supporting evidence of this, and my views have been much more swayed to this side. After researching most viewpoints and the impact that euthanasia has had in countries such as Belgium that it has been legalized in, there is prominent evidence that it would be detrimental.

