In October of 2012, Prue Leith’s brother, David, died of a terminal disease called bone cancer. Nothing can be done about bone cancer except alleviating pain at that point, however that is exactly what was failed to do. Bone cancer, itself, does not kill. It causes agonizing pain and the skeleton becomes so fragile that even coughing could shatter bones; waiting for the disease to spread to an organ or for pneumonia, to finish you off.  David was begging up until the day he died, for doctors to end his suffering in a peaceful way, however in the United States, this is considered murder. Murder: a word that carries an exceedingly negative connotation, was used to described an action made out of love and compassion. David, and anyone else, should not have to endure months of pain just to end up dying in agony. Pain relief is possible in a few institutions like hospice care, however, hospitals are tasked with keeping the patient alive at all costs. David, determined to end the pain, refused anymore antibiotics so the next round of pneumonia would kill him. In the end it caused stress and distraught for family members and torture for the patient. But what if there could be another option for the ones that suffer unbearably up until the end? In the United States, PAS (physician-assisted suicide) and euthanasia needs to be an option for those patients suffering from terminal illnesses who have the healthy mindset to decide for themselves. Advancements in modern medicine are causing people to live longer and longer, so the viewpoint of PAS should change with the time.  It is time to put something into effect for people who do not wish to be kept alive longer than their bodies can withstand. Death with Dignity Act. Death with Dignity Act. Death with Death with Dignity Act.

In 1997 the state of Oregon passed the Death with Dignity Act: a piece of legislation that enables a competent adult, with a terminal illness and whom desires to end their life, access to a lethal dose of medication. It provides an end-of-life option that allows certain eligible induvial to legally request medication to end their life in a peaceful, humane, and dignified manner. For a person to qualify for assisted suicide, they must be eighteen years or older, be a resident of Oregon, and be able to verbalize and understand their decisions, while also having a diagnosis of a terminal illness with less than six months to live (Volker, 2007). Assisted suicide has numerous steps including; an age requirement of eighteen, residency, and there must be a diagnosis that will be terminal within the next six months. After considering alternatives like hospice care, a clearheaded decision must also be communicated with to your doctor a minimum of three times. The first step is making a “formal oral request.” After fifteen days of the request, another oral request, followed by a written request form signed by two witnesses (Engber). Once the request is received and approved by at least two physicians, the patient is prescribed one of two kinds of barbiturates; powder form and Nembutal, a liquid form (Engber).  After consumption, the patient slips into coma after five minutes and a peaceful death usually comes about half an hour later. On June 26, 2015, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the constitution guarantees the right for same-sex couples to marry in all fifty U.S. states. On May 3, 2016, President Obama orders public schools to open restrooms to transgender students. These examples, along with many others, are examples from the “Pro” wave movement in the United States, which is representing the freedom of expression and basic human rights. Why is it that there are so many other human rights being granted, but a person suffering from a terminal illness cannot die peacefully and without pain? According to an article published by Cornell University Law School, the first amendment of the United States Constitution protects the right to freedom of religion and freedom expression from government interference (“First Amendment”).  With this being said, there is no denying that not allowing people the right to their own lives and bodies is a violation of the First Amendment of the United States Constitution. In a free country like the United States; people should have the right to decide what they do with their lives in safe and respectable manner. 

Another great question to consider is why is euthanasia almost always considered appropriate for animals, but not humans? According to Jessica Pierce, Ph.D., who is a vet, bioethicist, and author, the owners of her patients are always eager to talk about their animal’s end-of- life treatment. Pierce states that people are often saying, without provocation, that they wished the world could have as much compassionate for human lives (Pierce). By denying people the same compassion for our pets, this implies that either human are not animals, which we technically are, or what we do for our pets at the end of life to end suffering if morally inappropriate if done to people (Pierce). There should be a way out for suffering people too. It is daring to draw a compassion between the lives of animals and humans; however, the comparison raises an important question: If we can do this for our pets, why can we not show the same compassion for our human loved ones?

“Physician-Assisted Suicide and Euthanasia in Washington State,” written by Anthony L. Back, Jeffery I. Wallace, MD, MPH, and Helene E. Starks, MPH, is an article, published by The JAMA Network (The Journal of the American Medical Association), to study the responses and feelings, as well as experiences about physician-assisted suicide (PAS) in Washington in 1996. To estimate how often physicians receive requests for physician-assisted suicide and euthanasia, a two-part questionnaire was mailed out to 1,453 potential responders and a total of 828 physicians actually returned the questionnaire. The results were that in the past year, 12% of the responding physicians received one or more requests for physician-assisted suicide, and about 4% requested euthanasia and that the diagnoses most often associated with the requests were cancer, Acquired Immunodeficiency Syndrome (AIDS), and neurological disease (Back).  Even though it is currently illegal in Washington, some of the physicians provided PAS anyways, so these results raise the question of how to ensure quality in the evaluation of patient requests for PAS because these cases are almost always circumstantial. Back, a professor in the department of medicine and oncology at the UW Medicine and Research Hospital, is currently working on a research project that is funded by the Lance Armstrong Foundation, which could provide some bias because their foundation is a nonprofit dedicated to providing support for people affected by cancer in the United States. This article was published on March 27, 1996 about a study conducted that year and considering it is now February of 2017, the information in the article is most likely outdated, because the number of requests for PAS could have decreased due to modern medicines and painkillers, or it could have increased due to the fact that people are now living longer because of medical advancements. However, these results are extremely supportive of the fact that PAS can work if done in the correct manner. 

More positive evidence that supports the legalization of PAS in U.S. states is from Dr. Diane Meier, and others from their article, “Characteristics of Patients Requesting and Receiving Physician-Assisted Death.” This is a study of 1,905 physicians that deal with terminal health cases that was conducted by Diane Meier, MD, et al. in order to record the different types of patients requesting physician-assisted suicide in 2003. The central claim of this source was to highlight the fact that people requesting and receiving assistance in dying are terminally ill with little time to live and a high amount of physical suffering based on an extensive questionnaire. Further analysis shows that almost half (47%), had a primary diagnosis of cancer, 53% were described as dependent, and the majority (90%), were lucid, but had experienced a recent deterioration in functional status (1538) (Meier). The main author of this article is Dr. Diane E. Meier and she is Director of the Center to Advance Palliative Care, as well as being a professor of Medical Ethics at The Catherine and Henry J. Gaisman Foundation, which focuses on giving for hospitals and medical research. Meier is a great candidate to write about physician-assisted suicide because she works with terminally ill patients every day, but this article was published by the JAMA Network, so that could produce some bias because it is a site that is only available to select universities, scholars, and researchers. However, it is a fairly older study since it was conducted in 2003, but it is still a very reliable source because it was done at a substantial time when the issue of physician-assisted suicide was beginning to arise.

There is an amazing TED Talk by Grace Pastine about the new Death with Dignity Laws that were passed in February 2015 for Canadians by unanimous votes. Pastine effortlessly persuades her audience to keep fighting for PAS (physician-assisted suicide) because everyone has the right to die with compassion, protection, and peace. Pastine is the Ligation Director at British Columbia Civil Liberties Association who graduated from University of Washington School of Law, where she has had first hand experiences on dealing with legal companions about PAS cases. we

A recent survey conducted of United States physicians shows that an astounding 69% object to PAS, 18% reject terminal sedation, and 5% object the withdrawal of life support (Pierce). The primary arguments given against PAS include, pain medication is advanced enough to prevent intolerable pain, a misdiagnosis from the physician resulting in law suits, and the most obvious being violation of the Hippocratic Oath (an oath stating the obligations and proper conduct of doctors). Meaning that health care providers are supposed to save lives- not take them. However, physicians are also responsible for helping the patient- not letting them suffer. 

There are multiple reasons holding America back from legalizing PAS completely. New York Times’ author, Haider Javed Warraich comments on the issue of physician-assisted suicide stating, “These days many patients fear what it takes to live more than death itself” (Warraich).  The right-to-die movement has made several big advances including gaining California, the largest state to put the law into effect. The side of society that is most against the law are actually the doctors. Most physicians are claiming that it is against their Hippocratic oath. As a physician himself, Warraich wants to gain the support of more doctors and Americans to gain support for assisted suicide all across the nation. A patient with terminal cancer asked Dr. Warraich not be resuscitated if his heart stopped and when the doctor asked him why, the patient answered with, “Because there are worse states than death.”

“Slippery slope”, another concern about the legalization of PAS, which predicts the abuse of people in vulnerable groups. The data from Oregon (taken from the annual and cumulative reports from 1998-2006) where PAS was legalized in 1997, and data from the Netherlands (where both PAS and euthanasia are legal) were searched to find any evidence of abuse of vulnerable patients. The rates of assisted dying showed no evidence of a heightened risk for groups susceptible to abuse, except for people suffering from AIDS, and a conclusion was reached that there is no current evidence for the claim that there is a disproportional impact on patients in vulnerable groups where PAS and euthanasia are legal. “Slippery slope” effect in this case means that it could lead to the death of some patients who are not ready to die. For example, in the final chapter of Nigel Biggar’s book, Aiming to Kill: The Ethics of Suicide and Euthanasia, Biggar states that, “The history of the development of the Nazi policy of involuntary euthanasia indicates that such effects are indeed a possibility that even contemporary liberal societies must reckon with (167)”. His statement meaning that there will be grave effects if the responsibility of human life values waver, but PAS is not decreasing the value of human life, it is increasing the respect for it by not allowing patients to suffer if they no longer have the will to. Biggar also neglects to include the increasingly positive results from recent studies coming from Oregon about their Death with Dignity Act. Death with Dignity Act. Death with Dignity Act. Death with Advocates for assisted suicide claim that it is well within the patient’s right to decide whether he or she lives or dies (Ku).  Emphasizing the importance of the principle of independence and freedom. Death with Dignity Act. Death with 

“Who May Die? California Patients and Doctors Wrestle with Assisted Suicide” was written by New York Times author, Jennifer Medina in June 2016. Medina focuses on most of her articles are politics and ethics in America. She includes four patient stories about how assisted suicide helped them overcome their terminal illnesses, which can easily be summed up with a quote from Mr. Wolf Breiman, which states, “... It just absolutely makes sense, it’s such a basic right to me. I don’t see how you can take the Constitution seriously and not agree that it’s consistent with the rest of the liberties we have,” (Medina). Death with Dignity Act. Death with 

Going back to the story about David Leith; this is only one of many stories that surround the topic of physician assisted suicide. Although the Death with Dignity Act that has been passed in a handful of states, it empowers people to control the timing of their death. Yet, physician assisted suicide still remains a controversial topic in today’s society that raises a number of ethical questions. These questions include: Who is the true owner of our lives? Should relieving suffering always be the highest priority or does suffering occur for a reason? Is suicide a purely individual choice (Ku, 2010)?

Due to recent medical discoveries and inventions, people are living longer and longer, even to the point of extreme frailty and there needs to be something put in place that gives terminally ill patients the option to die with dignity. Other states have already legalized this proposal, like Oregon, Washington, and California, where data has constantly shown that PAS and euthanasia benefits terminally ill patients suffering from diseases and so should the rest of the United States. This topic can easily effect anyone at any point in time and more attention needs to be paid to PAS. It can be as easy as emailing your governor stating that you at least want the right to end your life, because everyone has the right to die on their own terms, in a dignified way, in the instance of a terminal illness. In the United States, PAS (physician-assisted suicide) and euthanasia needs to be an option for those patients suffering from terminal illnesses who have the healthy mindset to decide for themselves, are at or above the age of eighteen, and can clearly communicate their demands. 
