Thomas was a patient who was admitted to the Oregon State Hospital a week after experiencing various symptoms including: loss of appetite, wheezing, chest pain, joint pain and facial paralysis. The doctors diagnosed Thomas with stage four lung cancer, which limited his life expectancy to only a few more weeks. Thomas was a typical man working an eight to four shift from Mondays to Fridays and never smoked a day in his life. His family was shocked to hear the news, but they supported his decision to end his life when the doctor exclaimed that he would be suffering while breathing during the final days of his life. Days after Thomas begin to suffer from breathing issues, he was administered a lethal dose of morphine and passed away peacefully. This conclusion is a result of a practice called euthanasia. Euthanasia is painlessly terminating a patient’s suffering from an incurable disease or in a permanent vegetative state. Euthanasia should be a source of treatment, but only if the patients meet the following criteria: not being under the influence, being approved by their physician, testing positive for a having a terminally ill disease and having multiple witnesses when signing the approval forms. Patients should have the right to be alleviated from pain, and euthanasia is an effective way to do that, therefore it should be legal in more places and possible becoming a universal right. 

The idea of euthanasia was first written by Hippocrates, the father of medicine, around 400 B.C. It wasn’t until over fourteen centuries later that the first law concerning euthanasia had passed in the English Common Law. In recent years two major cases of euthanasia had arisen, first being Washington v. Glucksberg in 1997 and Gonzales v. Oregon case. In the Washington v. Glucksberg U.S. Supreme Court ruling, it stated that it is consider murder for the adviser to have reason or advise for the person to kill themselves, but in the Gonzales v. Oregon case, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that physicians were allowed to end the lives of patients as long as they fulfill various requirements. There are many landmark cases similar to Washington v. Glucksberg and Gonzales v. Oregon which all the same variables. It was the patient fighting the state rather than the doctors. It’s the patients want of death, not the doctors.  Euthanasia can be divided into various forms, including active and passive euthanasia. Active euthanasia is when the third-party is consciously aware that they are ending the life of the patient through termination. Passive euthanasia is also ending the patient’s life, but it is done by discontinuing a treatment or failure to intervene with a treatment. An example of passive euthanasia would be to put “Do Not Resuscitate” on a living will. Two other forms of distinction are voluntary and non-voluntary euthanasia. Voluntary euthanasia is the decision of the individual who is receiving the treatment to give consent to the terminate their life. Non-voluntary euthanasia is when the third party makes the decision to terminate the patient’s life which would usually occur if the patient is not mentally competent. The decision to terminate one’s own life, would be the result of physical pain and burden of the individual. It usually involves the notion that they are terminally ill, in unbearable pain and/or avoiding prolonged suffering. Currently, only a few states in America allow for the practice of euthanasia, it includes, Washington, Oregon, Colorado, Vermont, Montana, California, and Washington D.C. With comparison to the international countries, more nations are allowing the practice of euthanasia with far less restrictions. This includes Belgium with was the first nation to execute a terminally ill child. The idea of euthanizing a child is much more haunting than an adult because of their youth and innocent. The decision also varies greatly among every nation. It should be proposed that the guardians of the child make the decision until the child is of age and only if the guardians are fit mentally and if not then the decision should be pass onto the medical ethnic board in the child’s residing hospital. In the United States, from the perspective of an adult, they would be able to make their own decision of their health and if they could not than they would have an advance directive and/or living will. 

The views on euthanasia varies on the position each person holds in the process and their personal history. From a patient’s perspective researched by Chapple and his colleagues, they concluded that, “those who had seen others die were particularly convinced that this should be a right. Some had multiple reasons, including pain and anticipated pain, fear of indignity, loss of control and cognitive impairment” (Chapple et al.). Most of the patients that were interviewed stated that they would want to have to right to choose what they wanted since they were effected by the physical pain. Since none of the legislators have had a first-hand experience with the topic, they would not be fit to decide on a foreign issue. It is also noted that the individuals who have seen others die would consider euthanasia since death in reality is skewed compared to what is displayed on movies and shows. “That is because people do not die of old age, but instead they die of natural causes from a disease due to a weak immune system,” (Lurie). People with COPD (Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease), pneumonia, bronchitis, influenza, and lung cancer would have to suffer and fight to catch every one of their breaths as their lungs wither away. Contagion of the Ebola virus would leave their victims bleeding out of their pores as the health of their organs begins to fall like a line of dominos. Another instance is from Pastine’s Ted talk on dignity with death, and one way that she described Peter, her patient’s anatomy was that his “muscle that held his organs in place had deteriorated… his organs shifted as it pressed against his spine… suffered the death his wife most feared.” (Pastine). Pastine describes how bad Peter’s life has become in only a few short months, from being a fit logger to sitting a wheelchair and his abdomen inverted to the point where a person could clearly outline every single one of his ribs. His physician had even sedated him to the point of sub-consciousness but even then, he still suffered until death. Gorsuch, an American federal judge, has his own take on the issue of autonomy. He described that, “…personal autonomy interests are protected by substantive due process doctrine…” (Gorsuch). Personal autonomy should be a right given to everyone. It has quickly evolved such as the right to an abortion and can be seen in modern society. Choosing where to eat and what tattoo to get to having the right to choose whether to terminate one’s own life should be an option as well. A common fear from practicing euthanasia is the patient’s loss of dignity. Many believe that the final decision that is still in their control would be when they would die. If the fourteenth amendment, due process law, allow for life, liberty, and property then, death should be allowed since the people have to right to choose whether to live or not.

From the perspective of the specialists who dispense and administer the lethal dose, Boudreau, a medical doctor, offers his opinion on the idea of ending patient’s life. He describes the practice as, “a deep-seated personal conviction about one's obligation to others, especially others in need” (Boudreau). Throughout his long studies at medical school, Boudreau describes the lack in discussion concerning the ending of patient’s life. It would be more obvious that future doctors and physicians be conscious of the sensitive subject for one day they may be expose to the issue in first-hand and unable to make a suitable moral decision. The idea of euthanasia would be considered taboo by many, since it would be obvious that a school for medicine would be used to study how to save lives rather than ending them. However, people should go to the hospital when they want to be alleviated from pain. With terminally ill patients, the only way to end their physical suffering and to the avoid emotional suffering from their love ones having to watch them fall apart is to follow through with euthanasia. In a study examining whether physicians and psychiatrists would consider euthanasia, it was shown that, “the percentage of permission of euthanasia in psychiatry practice was 2% compared to that of 37% average amongst the general medical community” (Levy et Al.). Physicians and doctors generally fear losing their licenses due to malpractice. They spend years at school practicing the same procedures. For many, assisting a patient with the practice of euthanasia would be a greater risk than the benefit. 

The family of the patient also plays an important role in the outcome since they are gravely effected by the decision and may affect whether or not the patient would consider or follow through with their final decision. During an interview with a young patient who had chronic obstructive lung disease and consider euthanasia as a source of treatment, Chapple, a doctorate at the University of Oxford asked, “Why don’t you want anyone with you?”. The patient responded with “…if anybody helps us they lock them up, which is wrong” (Chapple). Most of the patients had similar responses since many cannot bear to have their loved ones watch them suffer and die. Having a family would also push the patient to choose life over death since they still had something to fight for. Just like the grief of the patient, the families will have to suffer the same even after the death of their loved ones. Some of the patients in areas where euthanasia is not legal would beg their family to terminate their life before they have to suffer to death. This usually left the family to feel remorse after their loved one had passed away. If the patient was unable to make their own decisions, then their family would be left to conclude the outcome of patient. 

Euthanasia may offer many benefits, however, if not carefully exercised can be abused as well stated by Dr. Fitzpatrick, an anti-euthanasia advocate, “Nearly half (47%) of euthanasia deaths are not reported (according to a study carried out in Flanders in 2007): This is illegal” (Fitzpatrick). Fitzpatrick’s article calls for the banning of euthanasia in Belgium. The practice of euthanasia in Belgium is not carried in proper practice with unauthorized individuals dispensing and administering lethal drugs. There are also many cases where the cases for accessing and administering the drugs are not properly documented. The issue in Belgium could be resolved by enforcing a more specific regulation and law along with having a specialized training session before individuals are able to dispense the drugs and harsher punishments for abusing the rights. There should be a presence of a social worker to document the procedure and witnesses to ensure that the patient is signing off to willing go forth with euthanasia. An inefficient palliative care was one of the main point that a patient would consider euthanasia. The residents lack attention and lack the dignity and respect they once had. In my experience working at nursing home during my senior year in high school, I noticed how often each of the residents stayed in solitude. Many of the residents were too weak to even perform activities of daily living, for example, brushing their teeth, eating with utensils, walking to the restroom and washing themselves. The issue was obvious, but the number of residents outnumber the certified nursing assistance (CNA) for every five residents there was one CNA. We had only a limited amount of time to complete various tasks on multiple resident and it was difficult to move the residents around without feeling like we were tossing them around the room. We would rarely have time to talk and get to know each of the residents as a person. Even after assisting the resident every Monday through Friday of every week for three months, most of the students that were assisting hardly knew anything but the basic facts about their residents. This issue however, could be resolved by having more nursing assistance taking care of less patients so that each patient could be listened to and treated more as a person than an item. Another question which had arisen was that would it be easier for healthcare providers to get away with murder? Like the answer before with a third-party present and documenting the action taken by the medical professionals. The chances of any unauthorized procedure would decrease drastically. In Fitzpatrick’s article, it had also stated that, “yet pain is hardly ever the reason for seeking euthanasia. In fact, any palliative care specialist will say no-one should ever be in intolerable pain” (Fitzpatrick). There is no further information on how pain can be prevented. Fitzpatrick fails to notice that the only reason a person would consider euthanasia would be to release themselves from unbearable pain, either physical and/or mental. The idea of ending one’s own life is not usually the first, instead it is used as the final resort. Some may also argue that the patient would lose trust in their doctors. This may be true however, if the doctor is inconsiderate and does not emphasize that they were helping their patients then that may have been the case. There have not been any cases where a person would be euthanized for any other reason other than from being terminally ill and suffering. Death of self without assistance of others would be considered suicide because euthanasia requires the assistance of a medical professional.  

The sixth commandment in the bible states that “thou shalt not kill”. Followed by the majority population on earth, practically every religion prohibits taking the lives of others but the news shows a different story. Hundreds of children and young teens die each year from gun violence, terror attacks and bombings are heard in the news every month, nations are sending their military to foreign counties and some of the militants are returning with post-traumatic stress disorder. Many are unable to practice what they preach. What difference would it make for a person to take their own life? The two colliding forces of state versus church has been around for some time. Even stated in the first amendment “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof” which gave rise to the establishment clause. James Fieser, author of EUTHANASIA from Moral Issues that Divide Us quotes David Hume who writes, “It would be no crime in me to divert the Nile or Danube from its course, were I able to effect such purposes. Where then is the crime of turning a few ounces of blood from their natural channel?” (Fieser). The quote challenges the view that God has His plans for all humans. God does not manage every action of every second, however, He does control the law of nature and allows each person to be the captain of their own life. Hume argues that if God has the right to alter the path of the river, then the use of new and modern medicine to lengthen the life of a person should not be acceptable. In society, the use of medicine and promoting an increase in life span in most culture and religion is praised and hundreds of millions of dollars are invested annually to promote activities like the washing of hands before and after eating a meal, using the restroom and finding cures to diseases such as cancer and HIV. If extending the life of a person is completely acceptable, even promoted, then the act of ending a person’s life would too be optional. 

Many physicians and medical specialist are introduced with the phrase, “Primun non nocere” early in their medical career. In the Hippocratic oath, it means “do no harm” translated from Greek. The meaning of doing no harm is unclear and is still debated today with various medical procedures. In relationship to euthanasia, the procedure is used to alleviate the individual from unbearable mental and physical pain. With everyone who is involved in the process of euthanasia, the perspective of each person involved would vary from the process of dispensing and administering to receiving the treatment. Many of the moral and ethical beliefs arises from religion since it plays a major role during the formation of United States and still does with society and social norms. This includes the right to choose whether to live or die. It is also shown in the journey of time that the social norm would greatly change similar to the legalizing of gay marriage and the right to have an abortion. 
