Imagine you or a loved one in the hospital, laying in agony with no chance of a recovery, simply withering away towards a slow, painful death. Wouldn’t you prefer that you or your loved one at least has the option to legally participate in active euthanasia? The history of euthanasia is a long and complicated one. In early Greek civilizations, active human euthanasia was accepted. As Christianity grew however, the practice of human euthanasia became increasingly less popular. This has been the sentiment surrounding the issue, especially since the American Medical Association expressed their views in disagreement with the practice. Many people tend to immediately side with the American Medical Association simply because of their name. I encourage people to view this issue based on the facts I am going to present, and leave your predispositions aside. Only in the last twenty-five years has progress been made regarding the legality of active human euthanasia. Oregon became the first state to legalize the practice in 1994. Since then, Washington, Montana, Vermont, California, and Washington D.C have legalized it (Procon). This topic is important because it can allow humans to be released from physical pain. Through most of my research, I have seen that a lot of opinions are swayed by politics. My reading is different because I have no political biases on the issue, I simply look at the facts available on the subject. Human beings have a right to remain living, and that should be reciprocated with the right to die. This essay will discuss the reasons I believe that assisted suicide (voluntary active euthanasia) should be legalized in all states. 

First, active euthanasia should be legalized because human beings deserve a right to choose death if they feel fit. In the case of Kevin Drum, it is shown how assisted suicide being illegal effects people’s lives. Kevin Drums father in law had been diagnosed with terminal cancer and was experiencing a great deal of pain. The man lived in a state where assisted suicide was illegal. As his conditioned worsened, he realized he would soon lose control of his own destiny. He passed away after he used helium gas as an inhalant to let him drift off to sleep. The problem with this action is because suicide is illegal, it was risky to say goodbye to his friends and family before his death, as they could have been held responsible for his death (Drum). It seems foolish one must go to these extremes simply to end their own life under their free will. Many would agree human beings have a right to life. It is immoral to kill a human being and take that life away involuntarily. The morality of this adjusts, however, when the person is suffering and voluntarily gives up their own life. Humans tend to want to be in control of their fate. No one desires to be in a vegetative state of helplessness. Having the cognitive ability to make decisions and control your own life is one of the most basic necessities to life.  Also, killing yourself without the assistance of medical professionals can be traumatic to others. Using guns, drugs, or other forms of physical harm are common ways people commit suicide. If physician assisted suicide was legalized nationwide, dying patients could decide when to die, and be surrounding by friends and family with the assistance of a trained medical professional to administer the lethal dose. 

To expand on reasons why voluntary active euthanasia should be legal, observing the effectiveness of international policies is important. The Netherlands is one of the European countries who have legalized active euthanasia. They even allow sixteen-year-old kids to legally decide to take their own life. There were 5,526 assisted suicide cases in Netherlands in 2015. One of the main concerns from those who oppose voluntary active euthanasia is that there will likely be cases of foul play and crime. However, the Euthanasia Committee of Netherlands determined a compliance rate of 99.93%. This exemplifies how active euthanasia in countries can be successful, given that 99.93% of cases had no foul play, and followed every regulation that the committee has in place. Legalizing active euthanasia does not necessarily mean there will be a massive increase in assisted deaths each year. From 2014 to 2015, the number of documented assisted suicide deaths only increased from 5,516 to 5,526. People often argue that legalization will lead to massive increases every year in assisted suicides, but these statistics show this is not always the case. An additional important piece of information is the location of the deaths. 80% of these assisted deaths took place within the dying patients house (Francis). Based off this data, the majority of these suffering people are passing away in their preferred location which is important to their happiness in their final moments on Earth. One the concerns of people against legal euthanasia is the institutionalism of hospitals leading to corrupt deaths and unfair judgements about the state of the patient. However, since 2003, the percentage of deaths in hospitals has dropped from 80% to 4% in cases of active euthanasia. In a recent poll, 88% of Netherlands citizens said they would choose to die within their own home if given the chance (Francis). The legalization act in Netherlands have allowed more people to end their lives in a peaceful, controlled environment, and spend their last moments alive in a peaceful state, in control of their own destiny. 

Moreover, the idea that passive euthanasia is legal, but active euthanasia is not is fundamentally contradictory. In my opinion, the idea that ending treatment and letting a dying patient slowly wither away, still in immense pain is more morally acceptable that allowing someone to voluntarily end their pain is backwards. In James Rachels’ essay discussing the differences between killing and letting die, he provides us with an excellent analogy. A man can gain insurance money from his child dying, so he goes into the room where the child is taking a bath and drowns him under the water. Everyone knows this is morally wrong. In the second case, the man goes up to drown the child, but finds that the child is already struggling under the water. The man does nothing and lets the child drown, and was fully prepared to push his head down if the child resurfaced. We must ask the question if the man behaved better in the second case. Both cases had the same motivation, and the same end result (Rachels). This case shows us that there are not significant moral differences between killing and letting die. In the case of euthanasia, I would argue that active euthanasia is more morally permissible than passive euthanasia simply because the patients is suffering and should have the right to peacefully end their own life on their own terms. Another fantastic example by James Rachels is shown with his story of Down’s syndrome newborns who need surgeries to fix congenital defects. In some cases, parents have the option to not do the surgery, and allow the child to die. Rachels argues that it is absurd someone can be in favor of allowing a baby to die while slowly dying of dehydration and infection compared to giving them an injection that ends their life swiftly and painlessly (Rachels). 

Furthermore, I do not believe that the United States government should be involved in someone’s decision to take their own life. According to the BYU Journal of Law, in 1997, the Supreme Court ruled that there is no constitutional right to legal assisted suicide (Myers). Yes, the government has a responsibility to protect its citizens lives, but not if the person voluntarily waives their right to life. The American people are in favor of legalizing voluntary active euthanasia. In fact, a recent poll shows that 66% of Americans believe that assisted suicide should be practiced under certain circumstances (HRF). In addition to the majority of citizens being in favor of it, legalizing voluntary active euthanasia can lower healthcare costs. After all, we are supposed to be a country with policies based off the will of the people. Healthcare is one of the largest chunks of the national budget, and anything that could lower costs needs to be considered. According to the New England Medical Journal website, 30 to 40 percent of total medical costs are spent are in the last month of life (Emanuel). As you can see, medical costs surge in the later stages of terminal illness, and much of these costs could be cut significantly if people had the right to choose if they want voluntary active euthanasia. The financial burden that these costs leave can crush many low-income families who already have to deal with the loss of a loved one. Hospice care is another alternative people often choose to have a safe, quiet place to be cared for until your death. While this sounds appealing, it is just another expense that in some cases, could be eliminated entirely if the patient chooses assisted suicide. Medicare pays towards hospice care, which come directly from taxpayer money. Legalization could open up tax money that can be used on more productive things such as education equality. The estimations of how much money would be saved per year if voluntary active euthanasia was legalized totals $627 million dollars (Emanuel). That money is money that can now be used to help families pay for post death arrangements instead of them being neck deep in medical bills. Many people would say that people’s lives are more important than saving money. That is the truth but you must keep in mind that these are people who are voluntarily giving up their right to life. The key word in all of this is voluntary. The terminally ill who are in dire pain are the only ones who should be eligible for active euthanasia. A concern from those opposed is that people will end up being able to participate in voluntary active euthanasia for reasons such as depression, and other non-terminal diseases. To refute this, the New England Medical Journal tells us that 80 percent of assisted suicides were due to terminal cancer. To expand on the issue, in a YouTube by CNN video featuring a man who helped both of his terminally ill parents commit suicide, he discusses why he believes assisted suicide should be legalized nationally. Simply because assisted suicide was illegal in their state, he had to help his parents kill themselves to respect their wishes. A traumatic experience such as that is a perfect example of why the law needs to change (CNN). 

One of the most popular arguments opposing legalizing assisted suicide is religious reasons. Many religious groups oppose legalization because they believe that all life is intrinsic value, and that is not to be altered. From the Christian perspective, they argue that every is a part of God’s plan and that altering the death of a human being is wrong. Letting someone choose passive euthanasia is permissible to them, but active euthanasia is not. The reason for this is that in the case of active euthanasia, someone is setting in motion the sequence that will lead to the patient’s death. The doctor is technically killing the patient. In an article written by a Christian group, it states that ending a life through euthanasia affects the “sanctity of life” (Pankratz). While the religious perspective has its merits, it should not be considered when making decisions regarding legal policy. The United States is a country that is full of different backgrounds and religions, so basing policy off of the views of a specific religious group is wrong. Someone who is not a Christian who feels that voluntary active euthanasia is the best choice for them should not be denied that because of the views of a religion they do not even affiliate with. That would simply be un-American. If change is going to be made on the policy, lawmakers (including the Supreme Court) must take into account what is best for all citizens, not just the opinions of religious groups. Also, if it were to be legalized, people who oppose the practice due to religious reasons will be essentially unaffected. Again, the key word is voluntary. If they do not wish to participate in active euthanasia then they will be unaffected by it. The only people who will truly be affected are the patients who choose to end their life. 

In conclusion, one can see the many benefits of legalizing active euthanasia nationwide. Legalization policies internationally have shown to be successful and I believe it is important for our country to change our polices to legalize this practice. One of the glaring issues in our country today is healthcare costs, and voluntary active euthanasia could be a step in the direction of improvement. The government should not be able to prohibit people from dying how they wish, especially under the circumstances of terminal illness. There are people all over the country who deserve the opportunity to end their suffering. All of these reasons exemplify the need for immediate policy change in the United States, a land where all citizens should have the right to determine their own destiny opposed to being crippled by excruciating diseases with no chance of recovery. Again, imagine if it was you or a loved one who was in dire pain. I believe that as long as the action is not physically hurting anyone else, people should be able to voluntarily end their lives surrounded by friends and family with dignity and peace.
