There are many terminally ill patients who are in the final stages of their lives, and request doctors to aid them in their suicide. Doctors use active euthanasia, which is the process of putting someone to death painlessly that allows a person with a terminal illness to die. Although it is a given right, there is much controversy over whether a doctor should be able to allow the process of euthanasia. The question is this: which causes more harm, forcing a terminally ill patient to suffer and live or allowing them to die painlessly? I strongly believe that a person with a terminal illness who is willing and able to give full permission to a doctor should be given the right to assisted suicide to end their suffering.

There are two different views to this argument. There are people who believe that it is morally unjust due to their religious beliefs. Christians would argue that death is “the exclusive domain of God” (Dvorsky 56). Christians believe that if a person decides to commit suicide then that person will go to hell. Many religions are very against suicide, but in this instance, it might benefit a patient. Also, if someone’s religious beliefs go against intentionally terminating a life or any other logistics of euthanasia, then they do not have to do it. For something to be immoral, it would have to violate moral laws. The legalization of assisted suicide does not have to affect a religion’s beliefs or be offensive to them. Everyone has the power to make their own decision about their lives without being effected by someone else’s religious beliefs. There are also people that think a doctor should not be given the opportunity to make the decision for someone else. The right to euthanize a terminally ill patient is not up to the doctor, it is up to the patient. If a person is given the right to make decisions for their own body such as abortion or sex change, they are clearly capable of making decisions such as when their life should end, how they should die, and what would constitute a life worth living. The government should not determine whether a terminally ill person can choose to end their life sooner. The Economist, an advocate for “the right to die” conducted a survey for people in 15 different countries and asked people if doctors should be able to allow a terminally ill person to die. In 11 out of the 15 countries, the majority agreed with The Economist. Forcing a person to suffer with pain by living is morally wrong. This study shows most of the people said if they were faced with this choice they would choose a more peaceful death. Per The Economist, patients should be required to go to “mandatory counselling about alternatives… to ensure that the intention is enduring; and a face-to-face consultation with a second, independent medical expert to confirm the patient’s prognosis and capacity.” This would benefit the patient by seeing if they are mentally stable enough to make the decision to go through assisted suicide. Many patients who are terminally ill want this procedure to be done, so they do not have to suffer anymore.  The authors of this article believe that that a terminally ill patient should have the right to die, but they also include points that go against their beliefs. To persuade the audience, Nora Zamichow and Ken Murray give reasons as to why it should be legal, backing it up with reasons why it should not be illegal. Brittany was faced with a tough decision, and many people were impacted by her decision in a positive way because her decision opened the eyes of society by showing that a terminally ill person would rather die sooner than be put through long months of pain. 

In most jurisdictions, it is illegal for someone to help you die even if you give consent. The most common argument against legalizing assisted suicide is the fear that people will abuse it and it would get out of control. Another common argument is that terminally ill patients will feel pressured into it as an “easy way out.” Cancer is the second leading cause of death, and is usually a very painful death. Cancer patients are put through heavy chemo treatments which cause extremely uncomfortable side effects such as nausea and loss of appetite. Not only is it painful, but the cost of treating a patient with cancer is ridiculously expensive. The more treatment a patient needs, the higher the medical bill. Due to the tremendous amounts of pain, trouble and stress cancer causes, people should be able to have a full choice about what they would like to do with their disease and life itself. This can have a large impact on not only the patient, but also their family. 

Harry Van Bommel tells us two stories in his article “Dying for Care” about people who were in hospice, but did not choose to die.  First, we read about Mary, who was diagnosed with Breast Cancer and thought that it had gone away. She then started to feel pain in her chest, but the doctors told her that the cancer had not yet spread and that she had a pulled muscle. Two months later, she collapsed into a coma and was predicted to not live through the day. She woke up a few days later and the doctors informed her that the cancer had spread to her brain, liver, lungs, and around her heart. The doctors were sad to give her the news but wished her family good luck in caring for her. Mary chose not to go under the process of euthanasia, and she continued living in much pain but was still surrounded by her family. Then we read about Frank, a construction worker living in Canada who was diagnosed with lung cancer. He went through treatments of chemo for some time, but the cancer began to spread and the doctors said there was nothing else they had to cure him. His family brought him back home and took care of him for his last living days. The author then compares the two stories, and says that Mary’s situation was very different from Franks because of the way the doctors cared for her, and what they said to her. The significance of these stories is to show the audience that not every terminal patient is going to choose to undergo euthanasia. The number of people that choose to do it now is minuscule, showing that no dying patient is in any way forced into it or pressured. 

If a person with a terminal disease is given the right to choose whether they wish receive surgery and treatments, then they should be given the right to decide if they want to undergo euthanasia. Forcing a terminally ill patient to suffer and live causes more harm than allowing them to die painlessly. The number of people who have received assisted suicide is significantly small, showing that the right has not been abused. It is unjust for someone to not have a say over the destiny of their own lives. 

Another reason people are against euthanasia is that people don’t think doctors feel comfortable performing it do patients. In Donald Boudreau’s article “Physician-assisted suicide and euthanasia” he discusses euthanasia in the eyes of a doctor. He says, “Can you even imagine teaching medical students how to end their patients’ lives?”  The article talks about how the legalization of euthanasia could affect the doctors, who are the ones that society thinks are responsible for the process. People in the medical field must know the process of euthanasia and be able to give it to a terminally ill patient. Some people may be uncomfortable learning how to put a person to their own death. The author then gives statistics of a study taking on a group of physicians who have performed euthanasia or assisted in suicide. 88 percent of them said they had received at least one request for assisted suicide in the future, and 77 percent had received one or more requests for euthanasia at a specific time. This article is written to show the audience that the physicians who are performing the process of euthanasia are fully capable and comfortable with the process. 

Most opponents of euthanasia are not fully aware of the process. Anwesha Maiti tells us more about euthanasia in her article “8 Little Known Facts About Euthanasia That You Need to Know.” Maiti shares 8 proven facts about euthanasia that are quite interesting. While reading the article, we learn that the term “Euthanasia” is a Greek word meaning “good death.” We also learn that euthanasia can be categorized into four types: Voluntary, Involuntary, Active, and Passive. The most commonly used type is Active Euthanasia. These facts are significant to supporters because they show that people that choose to undergo euthanasia have the right to choose how they want to do it. No patient is pressured or forced into getting it done a certain way. 

“We always listen to the patient. We never tell a patient: ‘this is what you have to do. You have no choice.’”( Shavelson). It is extremely important to take into consideration the wants and needs of a patient. If the patient is willingly choosing to end their suffering, then the physician is the one who can help them. The physicians are saving the patients from suffering, and can never force a patient into doing something that they are against. 

In Mars Cramer’s article Euthanasia Was the Right Decision for My Wife,” we read the story of Mathilde, who received a diagnosis of Waldenstrom’s disease at the age of 71. Mathilde was aware that her life was coming to an end, and did not want to suffer anymore. She decided to consider euthanasia, and discovered that the most active method is where the doctor prepares two syringes. The first injection puts the patient into an induced coma, and the second stops the heart. The process takes only a couple of minutes. Mars then lists the four conditions for euthanasia: it must be administered by a doctor; the patient must entirely desire it, there must be no chance of recovery, and the patient must be suffering unbearably. This shows that euthanasia is not guaranteed to everyone with terminal illness’. Therefore, there is no way the drug can be abused. The doctor of the patient must consult with numerous other doctors about the process and then they must write a report that gets submitted to a monitoring committee. These steps show that the process is not as easy as people think. 

One of the 5 states where assisted suicide is legal in the United States is Oregon. Oregon voters made it legal for doctors to write lethal prescriptions for patients with terminal illness’. The Oregon Paradox permits a suicidal person to be able to receive treatment for suicide against his will, but permits assisted suicide to others. Terminally ill patients who request euthanasia are owed a duty of “good faith” from their doctors (Gorsuch). Assisted Suicide is defined as the ability for an ill patient to be able to decide when they want their life to end. The main reason patients make the choice to undergo the process of euthanasia, is because they no longer want to live in suffering. Besides Oregon, the other states where assisted suicide is legal are Washington, Vermont, California, and Montana. Assisted Suicide should be legalized in all states because humans need the right to decide when they feel they would rather die than continue to suffer.

One major opponent of euthanasia is Peter Saul. Saul argues that the way people view death is an issue. He says people need to be more informed and involved in their own death process. 1 in 100 people plan what will happen if they ever become deathly ill. In his talk “Let’s Talk about Dying, Saul says “In the event that you couldn’t speak for yourself, who would you like to speak for you?” This is a very important question to ask a patient who is dying. The patients need to be aware of all options and rights they are given. He also expresses how humans are losing brain cells at all times, so there really is no such thing as “lifesaving,” it is more of a “prolonging or redirecting death.” As the speaker mentions multiple times, everyone dies and it only comes once, so people should begin to get a better understanding of the choices that come along with death. However, Saul contradicts himself when he says that he hates euthanasia, but he wants people to have control over how their dying process perceives. If people should have control over their dying process, that means they should be able to decide if they want to die. 

A person with a terminal illness who is willing and able to give full permission to a doctor should be given the right to assisted suicide to end their suffering.  Throughout these articles, we read of many opinions and views on euthanasia. Some authors give their opinions as to why euthanasia should be legal, and others try to persuade the opponents by giving reasons as to why it should be illegal. In Peter Saul’s talk, he expresses the importance of being involved in your own dying process. He tells the audience that he does not support euthanasia, but believes people should have the control over how their dying process perceives. He believes we don’t need to stop euthanasia, but we need to stop the want for it, meaning no one should want to undergo the process. However, he is speaking for everyone, not just terminally ill patients. He doesn’t mention these people in his talk, and they’re the ones who get the option. No one is entitled to assisted suicide; it is very rare and only available for someone with a terminal disease. There are many different stories that come with the topic of euthanasia. There are many instances where someone has chosen to die, and others where people wait and die suffering. Many of the stories are painful and sad. So, when we come back to the question: “which causes more harm, forcing a terminally ill patient to suffer and live or allowing them to die painlessly?” we can conclude that forcing an ill patient to live and suffer is worse. For a physician to deny the person his right to die when under intense pain and suffering is effectively forcing them to live a life without what they believe is their dignity, a life suffering and eventual death. (Anderson 2) It is unjust for someone to not have a say over the destiny of their own lives.
