I am interested in the subject of assisted suicide because it intrigues me how it is only legal in five states (California, Oregon, Montana, Vermont, and Washington) but not legal across the entire United States. I think people should be allowed to choose to die if they are in great pain and have been told they only have months or weeks to live. People do this to their pets when they are suffering so why don't they do this to themselves? Although I myself have never been in this sort of pain I know that there are many elderly Americans in hospitals suffering, just waiting to die. My values towards human life don't really affect my research topic, I don't even know anybody who has taken part in assisted suicide, and it may even be against my religious beliefs; however, I still believe people should have the right to choose. I am qualified to write about this question because I will be doing extensive research on both sides of the controversy and will know the specific reasons why and why it shouldn't be legalized.

The first source I analyzed was an article titled "The Promised End -- Constitutional Aspects of Physician-Assisted Suicide," an unbiased source from the New England Journal of Medicine that talks about what assisted suicide is and the constitutional aspects surrounding it. The source talks about Oregon and how assisted suicide is legal there. Oregon claims that the law is ethical and humane. If a person is in a pain they should be allowed to request a physician's aid in dying. The author also includes thoughts from the side against assisted suicide. Critics think assisted suicide "ruins the sanctity of life." In other words, helping someone kill themselves ruins the purity and preciousness of life. Many people who oppose assisted suicide believe that there is also the potential for abuse if the practice becomes legal and widely used. Elderly may be pressured to induce it upon themselves or the law may slacken over time to the point where it becomes non-voluntary or involuntary euthanasia. The author of this source, George J. Annas is very credible. He is published in fields of bioethics, law, and public health. He also has his Juris Doctorate and Masters in Public Health from Harvard. He writes about both of the viewpoints towards assisted suicide without trying to sway the reader, making him unbiased. His purpose is to inform the public not persuade them. 

The second source entitled, "Assisted Suicide: A Right or a Wrong?" is from the Markkula Center for Applied Ethics, an ethics center at Santa Clara University. The article begins with an account of an old man in excruciating pain stuck in a hospital who, in the end, has his brother come in to the hospital and shoot him. The brother was tried for murder. The article goes on to discuss why physician assisted suicide should be legal. Peoples' lives are being prolonged due to the increased technology so there are more people surviving, but also suffering. The authors then write about reasons why assisted suicide shouldn't be legalized. They write about how society has a duty to "protect and preserve all life (Andre and Velasquez)" and how patients may be pressured into requesting assisted suicide if it becomes the norm. The major values and interests at stake are the views of religious groups in the U.S. There would likely be an outrage from religious groups because they view all forms of suicide as a destruction of dignity and the value of human life. However, many non-religious citizens would also gladly adopt this new law especially if they or someone they know are in need of assisted suicide. This source is credible because it comes from Santa Clara University. The Ethics Center's staff consist of Ph.D. ethicists, lawyers, businesspeople, school principals, religious leaders, scientists, and journalists. The article starts off a little biased in the beginning when it describes the story of the suffering old man. Providing a real-life example of how assisted suicide would have helped a family does a lot to persuade a reader into wanting assisted suicide to become legalized. However, the rest of the article is mostly unbiased, providing positive and negative aspects of what it would mean to legalize assisted suicide. Its purpose is to inform and let readers choose their own side.

I found my final article, entitled "Dignity & the end of life: how not to talk about assisted suicide," from the Gale Resource Center. It is primarily about the opposing views towards assisted suicide. The article makes ties to abortion and how if abortion is legal, assisted suicide should also be legal. Kaveny, the author, also addresses the fears people have and why they should overcome them. The major values and interests at stake are the people who are against assisted suicide and people who are suffering and in extreme pain. This source is credible because it is from an online database (Gale Resource Center) and is initially from Commonweal magazine which is very credible as it is the oldest independent Roman Catholic journal of opinion in the U.S. The article may be a bit biased against assisted suicide because Commonweal is a liberal journal of opinion edited and managed by Catholics. Catholics are known to be against assisted suicide, however liberals are for assisted suicide so it is hard to say.

The issue of assisted suicide is definitely an arguable topic. There are many reasons for and many reasons against why it should be legal. A common argument for it is that people who are suffering and want to die should have the option to instead of just waiting in agony. The main arguments against this is that killing somebody is unethical and destroys the sanctity of life. Many of those who oppose assisted suicide also think that assisted suicide could go down a slippery slope and become corrupt to the point of non-voluntary (a doctor ordering your death without you really having a say) or involuntary (a doctor ordering for your death against your will) assisted suicide. The different perspectives of the sources do not really effect my position because, in my opinion, preventing someone from suffering is more ethical than making that person suffer because of religious views or fear of the unlikely scenario where patients may become pressured to request assisted suicide. Citizens of the United States should be allowed the option to request physician assisted suicide if they are terminally ill and are in an unbearable state of suffering. After researching I have decided to revise my research question to apply to anybody who is suffering, not just the elderly because young people can still be in similar situations.

