       Though the terms assisted suicide and euthanasia typically go hand in hand, they are actually very different in the terms of what they stand for. Typically, “euthanasia is defined as the administration of lethal drugs by a physician with the explicit intention to end a patient's life at that patient's explicit, voluntary, well-considered, and enduring request. Physician-assisted suicide is defined as the self-administration by patients of lethal medication prescribed by a physician, in the physician's presence, again following a patient's explicit, voluntary, well-considered, and enduring request” (Pols and Oak). Throughout much of the world, euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide is illegal, however, in the Netherlands and Belgium, assisted suicide and or euthanasia are allowed to be committed with specific regulations and requirements under acts which were passed by the governments. Due to these confinements within the laws regarding physician-aided suicide and euthanasia, there have been multiple attempts to expand current laws which would make these acts more accessible to patients who would like to seek these options. With expansion of the laws and physician-aided suicide and euthanasia becoming more widespread, the countries who have not yet legalized these acts could gain knowledge on the subjects in order to allow every human the equal right to decide when to end their own life with dignity.

       Due to the large amount of court cases involving physician-aided suicide in the Netherlands prior to the 1970s, starting in the 1980s, the Dutch government began to discuss, create, and regulate a framework surrounding the idea of physician-aided dying (Pols and Oak). Though there was not yet a law in place regarding the subject, this allowed for the act to be committed under the government with light regulation. A few decades later in 2002, the Dutch parliament created the Termination of Life on Request and Assisted Suicide Act which led the Netherlands to becoming the first country to legalize physician-assisted death (Ost 20, Pols and Oak). 

However, the act did not completely decriminalize euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide, instead was enacted to protect physicians against prosecution if the strict set of regulations within the act was followed (Pols and Oak) When the law was first enacted, there was a drop in the number of physician assisted suicide requests and completions from the years prior which could be explained by the people possibly not understanding the new standards in place (Evans et al. 2218). The new act contained strict requirements for physicians to follow when deciding whether a patient could partake in assisted death including “the suffering of the patient is unbearable and without prospect for improvement; there are no further options for medical treatment; the patient is sufficiently informed about his or her situation and future prospects; the request for physician-aided death is made voluntarily, is well-considered, enduring; and a second, independent physician has investigated the patient and provided a written opinion” (Pols and Oak). With all the criteria needing to be met in order for a doctor to act on the wish of an assisted suicide, there are multiple times where physicians are unable to fulfill the patients wants (Ost 20).

       With multiple patients being stripped the chance of physician-aided death due to the doctor’s reluctance when the criteria are not reached, patients are forced to turn to other methods in order to kill themselves (Ost 20). When the patients look into other methods of death, one method involves stopping the intake of food and fluids. Ost writes that in one study 49% percent of patients who stopped eating and drinking were refused the right of assisted suicide, but reasons why patients choose this method include the “readiness to die, the belief that continuing to live was pointless, an assessment of the quality of life as poor, a desire to die at home, and a desire to control the circumstances of death” (22). If patients are able to kill themselves by the inhumane way of refusing to eat or receive fluids, what allows a set of standards to prohibit a patient from partaking in physician assisted suicide. However, this is not the only option available, another option would include the lay-assisted suicide option. A lay-assisted suicide is much like a physician-assisted suicide, however, the lay person providing the medication is not a doctor which creates an issue because they are not protected from prosecution under the act (Ost 23). Under these circumstances, if a lay is to aid in a death, it could be punishable as manslaughter or murder which creates an impossible decision for someone wanting to help a patient or loved one through an incredible amount of suffering, but if the law were expanded in order to increase the amount of patients eligible to partake in assisted suicide or euthanasia, people would not have to put their own lives on the line to end another.

Another leader in the progressiveness of the euthanasia and assisted suicide laws is the country of Belgium. Shortly after the Netherlands passed the Termination of Life on Request and Assisted Suicide Act in 2002, Belgium created The Belgian Act on Euthanasia just months later. This law was very closely related to the law created in the Netherlands which allowed for the euthanasia of patients suffering from terminal illness above the age of 18 as long as they fit into to requirements of the law. However, between the years of 2013 and 2014, there was a massive push to allow children the use of euthanasia when suffering through a terminal illness, and with this, there were multiple views regarding a new law surrounding this topic (“Belgium considering world's first child euthanasia law”). Though many people explained they believed that since a child is not legal to make decisions by themselves according to other laws such as drinking and voting, how would they be able to make the decision that they want to end their life (“Belgium considering world's first child euthanasia law”). Yet, ultimately the decision came down to that whether it is a grown adult or young child suffering through a terminal illness, they were going through the same pain and should be allowed the right to have the same escape from their suffering (“Belgium considering world's first child euthanasia law”). After major debate regarding this law, the government finally ruled that child euthanasia was to be legalized with specific regulations and requirements including parental consent (“Belgium considering world's first child euthanasia law” and Miller et al.). However, although Belgium is the leader in this new law allowing children access to euthanasia, there are still many limitations in the law that need to be considered.

The use of assisted suicide by those who have a terminal illness should be available to the healthy elderly population as well (Bilefsky and Schuetze). This current push for expansion is occurring in the Netherlands, however, since Belgium legalized assisted suicide and euthanasia for children who are terminally ill, there should be a backing on this law there as well. Though this could possibly present a controversy, the elderly having the opportunity to partake in assisted suicide when they feel as though they “do not have the possibility to continue life in a meaningful way, are struggling with the loss of independence and reduced mobility, and have a sense of loneliness, partly because of the loss of loved ones, and are burdened by general fatigue, deterioration and loss of personal dignity” (Bilefsky and Schuetze). Considering that although elderly patients may not be terminally ill, there will eventually be a time where they are unable to continue their life, so why do they not have the same opportunity to end their life with dignity. Critics to this law would argue that this could possibly be passing an ethical or moral line by allowing the opportunity of suicide to people who simply want to end their life because they are lonely, and though this is could occur, how is it someone else’s right to determine if one has to live a life without the people they love surrounding them.

Expanding the law currently in place could help more than just healthy elderly people die with dignity, but it could totally transform the current view of assisted suicide and euthanasia many have today. One way this could occur is expanding the law to allow for the assisted suicide of euthanasia of prisoners where there is no death penalty available or whenever a death penalty is not sentenced. For example, in one case that occurred in Belgium, Frank van den Bleeken wanted to be killed using euthanasia after spending 30 years in prison for rape and murder, and since Europe does not have a death penalty, the suicide would be treated as therapy because van den Bleeken felt as though he had nothing else to live, but on top of that, it would prevent him from ever committing another heinous crime ever again (Lane). However, the doctor in Belgium in charge of the euthanasia backed out just days before the killing was to occur which led van den Bleeken wanting to attempt his suicide in the Netherlands instead (Lane). Though this option is not as obvious, it could be used for prisoner who feel as though they no longer want to live under the conditions of the prisons or feel as though when they get out will just return to their previous habits, and not move on into a better life. Along with getting criminals off the streets, it would allow for prisons to be less populated which would force less tax payer dollars to go to prisons creating a larger cash flow to the government or possibly lower taxes for the citizens paying. Therefore, this option would not only benefit the government and its citizens, but grant the choice of life or death to prisoners who are human and deserve rights as well.

Yet with the topic on expanding the current laws of assisted suicide and euthanasia, it is difficult to imagine that some countries and or states do not even have a law legalizing these acts yet, and one such example is the United Kingdom. Though in the United Kingdom it is not illegal to remove life-saving care such as life-support or ventilators, there comes an issue when doctors or other persons providing care to patients assist in methods which could cause death (“Euthanasia”). Not only is this action illegal, it can be charged in the courts of the United Kindom as manslaughter or even murder (“Euthanasia”). Although there have been multiple attempts for a law to be created that legalizes euthanasia or assisted suicide, the action is still illegal throughout the United Kingdom today. One case stood out above the rest in the United Kingdom in regards to the attempt to push for the legalization of assisted suicide in the country. In the year of 2005, a 51 year old man named Jack Nicklinson suffered a stroke which left him paralyzed from the neck down and unable to speak (“Man with locked-in syndrome”). After this instant, Nicklinson was forced to be under constant care, but two years into having locked-in syndrome, he began to refuse to take life-prolonging such as blood thinners and heart drugs which made him more susceptible to another stroke possibly occurring or even a heart attack (“Man with locked-in syndrome”). Nicklinson’s health began to worsen which left him in “a great deal of physical pain and discomfort” (“Man with locked-in syndrome”) leading him to look into the choice of euthanasia, but the United Kingdom does not allow for this process to occur. With euthanasia not being legal, Nicklinson looked to take his case to Britain’s High Court to see if they could overturn the current ban in place. However, the court denied Nicklinson of his wish leaving him heartbroken and feeling defeated, and just days after hearing the decision, Nicklinson passed away peacefully in his sleep as his family stated (“Man with locked-in syndrome”). Though Nicklinson was not able to get the law reversed for his personal use, many people hoped to use his story to influence possible change for other people in the same situation, but the United Kingdom government has held relentlessly against the push from its citizens.

Situations involving countries that have yet to legalize the use of assisted suicide are harder to deal with for most people fighting through terminal illnesses because though multiple people live in different countries throughout the world, all humans should maintain the same rights. Therefore, when someone in the Netherlands are dealing with the same disease as someone in the United Kingdom, but one patient is granted the right to die with dignity while the other is forced to live with pain and suffering. However, it becomes an even tougher situation when it comes to state lines within the same country. Back in 2014, Brittany Maynard, whom suffered from terminal brain cancer, felt compelled to partake in physician-assisted suicide when she found out that she was only left with six months to live and no possible cure for her disease (Bever). Seeing that she was out of options regarding her treatment, Maynard and her husband packed up their life in California and moved to the state of Oregon because California had not passed a law legalizing the use of assisted suicide (Bever). Though having to move across state lines does not seem like a massive deal, there is a multitude of stress it can place on a whole family especially if it involves moving for the death of a loved one. Since Maynard’s death, the state of California has legalized the act of assisted suicide with her story being a main force behind the rally, but not many states followed in the footsteps still leaving multiple states without the rights to die with dignity. However, a few states have decided to push for the right to assisted suicide and euthanasia, and the laws are currently being disputed and possibly voted for within the next couple of years to come.

With the stories of both Brittany Maynard and Jack Nicklinson, it is easy to see that there is a strict line between what governments believe is right and all humans having equal rights, but without enough backing nothing is going to be changed. Today, there are more and more countries and states pushing to legalize assisted suicide and euthanasia in order to provide dignity to those who are suffering through terminal illnesses or mental diseases. However, the push for expanding preexisting laws needs to be just as sturdy because the elderly should be able to end their life when they feel is necessary as well as children who are going through the same suffering as adults. Also, the push for using euthanasia or assisted suicide when it comes to prisoners especially those who are rapists or murderers where there happens to be no death penalty needs more attention because although it may seem bizarre, there are serious benefits that could come from the legalization of this. Therefore, if assisted suicide or euthanasia is not a topic which should be legal, think about all the people suffering from diseases and not being able to do anything about it because they are refused the same rights that someone else has.
