In the dictionary, euthanasia is defined as simply as “painless death”. Euthanasia, also known as “mercy killing” or “assisted suicide,” is a widely known topic throughout the world, however the viewpoints on it are not as uniform everywhere, as other highly discussed topics are. Putting the decision of legal, assisted death (with valid reasons) in the hands of the public creates an immense amount of controversy, due to such strong differing opinions. Many claim you must be in the situation, or must be a close family member/ friend in order to understand why euthanasia exists. At the same time, a large portion of the population is against euthanasia, if not due to their religion, due to the belief that someone suffering from severe pain or illness is not mentally capable of making such an important decision. Today, specific guidelines provide reassurance that the patient suffering should or should not be allowed to partake in the procedure. Euthanasia can be a sensitive topic to discuss, and decision to make, however it should be up to the patient, no matter where they reside, to decide whether or not he/she would like to ease their pain and end their fulfilled life with dignity.

Just because euthanasia is frowned upon in certain areas of the world does not mean it should be illegal. In Philip Nitschke’s article “Euthanasia: Hope you never need it, but be glad the option is there,” he discusses exactly what euthanasia is and points out the reasons behind why it is considered such a difficult and touchy topic. At one point, Dr. Nitschke details in on the newly passed allowance to include assisted suicide in one’s Living Will in New Zealand. A point is made that those with certain diseases can now pre-plan the rest of their life if necessary. The new allowance provides comfort for those who worry for their future. One interviewee, who may find himself with Alzheimer’s in the near future, stated “If I do get dementia, at least the children will know what I want. I can now rest assured that my wishes not to live "like that" will be respected.” This sentiment is known to be very common throughout areas in New Zealand and is a prominent in Exit International, an end-of-life choices information and advocacy organization. This organization’s motto is “a peaceful death is everybody’s right,” as opposed to “a peaceful death is everybody’s right unless you are a child or a teenager or have dementia, in which case tough luck!” This opposing quote, that adds specific details involving the safeguard, directly shows the disputes surrounding the consequences of criminalizing assisted suicide. Not only does the decision to end your life help with planning, but Dr. Nitshcke writes about how government money will increase, seeing as it would not be wasted “keeping the demented elderly alive in the nation’s care homes if that is not how, when they could communicate, they said they wanted to spend their last days.” (Nitschke). Government money will be conserved while the stress of many will be alleviated. With newly passed rights such as this one, not only elderly, but people of all ages, can continue their life in New Zealand with the comfort of knowing assisted suicide is an option.

When considering euthanasia, it is important to ask yourself if you would prefer to deteriorate in a nursing home/hospital or end your life with dignity, once you believe you have lived a fulfilling life. Peter Saul discusses this important question in a TedTalk named “Peter Saul: Let’s talk about dying.” Saul is an emergency doctor and the Head of Discipline for Medical Ethics at Newcastle University, therefore he has an abundance of experience working with death first hand. Saul has witnessed extreme suffering every day at work, therefore he supports assisted suicide and his goal is to make large improvements when it comes to dying. The option to end life with the help of professionals allows for a much more enjoyable ending for many. In this way, people can prepare for the end and ensure that the respect they receive will not decrease. In a New York Times article named “Aid in Dying Movement Advances,” a specific example is provided proving euthanasia can make death a much less painful process. A New York assembly woman, by the name of Amy Paulin, created an aid-in-dying bill once she had met with a constituent and a lobbyist. The woman she had met with shared her sister’s ovarian cancer story. Her sisters pain, due to the cancer, was unbelievable and unbearable. The patient would cry herself to sleep. Had she resided in an area in which lethal doses of medicine were legal, days of misery for both the patient and her family would have been spared. Paulin’s dream was for her relatives to say their final goodbyes to her sister before she had taken the pills. “’It would have been a much better ending to losing your sister,’ she said. ‘We could have all been there. We could have held her hand.’” (The Editorial Board) By illegalizing and criminalizing euthanasia, patients like Paulin’s sister are forced to suffer more and more each day. In Howard Ball’s “What Freedom Do We Have to Die with Dignity,” an ALS patient explains his desire to die without becoming “a colossal waste of love and money.” The fear of only adding hardships to friends and family is inevitable for people with excellent support systems. Patients often feel as though they are a burden to their loved ones when they become so ill that they cannot recover. In Justin Healey’s “Assisted suicide case prompts calls for euthanasia law review,”  laws, surveys, and opinions from a multitude of perspectives are discussed. Towards the beginning of the article, Healey brings up a specific example where anyone who were to put themselves in the situation given would understand why euthanasia should not be considered a crime. In 2005, euthanasia advocates requested a review of Tasmania’s euthanasia laws once Catherine Anne Pyror, 42, “admitted assisting with her father's suicide but denied trying to kill her mother by injecting her with insulin.” (Healey) A Supreme Court jury claimed she was guilty and gave her a jail sentence of two-and-a-half years for her actions. In reality, she was trying to ease her father’s suffering from terminal cancer and prevent her mother from experiencing the soon-to-be extreme results of her developing dementia. People of the community can be quoted stating, “she has been actually convicted purely because of her great love and compassion for her parents.” The case was later reevaluated and Pyror was released for her actions. This suspension brought up the idea of decriminalizing euthanasia and opened the eyes of many. The community was on her side once they witnessed a real-life example of euthanasia and why it should be accepted more often. By allowing euthanasia, the ill do not have to worry about losing respect and dignity. Not only will allowing euthanasia everywhere ease physical pain (for both the patient and their loved ones), but it will ease an immense amount of mental pain for others such as doctors and the community as a whole.

Although only a select few states in the USA allow euthanasia, there are many large areas in which assisted suicide is practically the norm. European countries allow almost all adults and children to make the executive decision to get euthanized. In David Mills “Assisted Suicide Isn’t Viewed the Same in Every Country,” statistics are provided on exactly how many people in Europe pursue euthanasia, proving that the decision to be euthanized is most definitely not out of the ordinary. Mills compares the fact that “competent adults and emancipated minors there have been able to end their lives simply by asking a doctor to inject them with a legal drug” to only four of the 50 states in the U.S. allowing euthanasia. Peg Sandeen, executive director of Death with Dignity, states that Europeans have a more pragmatic view of death while views in the U.S. tend to be more emotional and spiritual. “‘We have an extremely youth-focused culture, said Sandeen. ‘Americans’ attitude towards dying is to think we never have to do it.’” (Mills) Sandeen fails to recognize that the only reason America may be considered more emotional or afraid to face the reality of death is due to the fact that we have yet to legalize euthanasia in the majority of our states. If this nation was as advanced when it came to euthanasia as an area like the Netherlands is, everyone would probably be much more used to, and accepting of, euthanasia. With several other countries throughout the world allowing such an important movement, this practically encourages people in areas in which it is not illegal to quickly move. If someone feels strongly enough about dying with dignity and would 100% partake in assisted suicide, what is stopping them from flying to a European country? Criminalizing assisted suicide only prevents the terminally ill that can not afford to travel or people who are simply not allowed to travel (by either doctors or loved ones) from going through with the process of moving for the procedure. If this procedure is a possibility, why is it not more expected that everyone (that is capable) pack up and move? If definite cures to the diseases that many face today are not found in the near future, it is likely that moving to a place where euthanasia is legal will become to norm, just as being euthanized is the norm in many European countries. Legalizing would increase the convenience and overall happiness of America and other areas in which assisted suicide is not completely accepted.

The decision to end one’s life is so crucial that many people question if the ill are mentally capable of making such a relevant decision. The reasoning behind people against euthanasia mainly consists of worry due to religion or hope. Suicide is directly against many religions. People also often hope for and believe recovery is possible. If one believes a person could improve from their situation and live an even more fulfilling life, this belief gives them a very good reason to fight against assisted suicide. In Healey’s example discussing nurse Pyror, a large sample of the community thought of her as a murderer. At the same time, many viewed her as a hero. Children and people with Alzheimer’s or dementia clearly have little to no agency. It is not unreasonable to agree that people with small amounts of agency are not competent enough to make such a large decision that can impact the rest of their lives. With little wisdom or ability to properly make a decision that would be in their best interest, it can be hard for people to allow others that are clearly mentally ill to make the executive decision. Restrictions on who can make this kind of decision should definitely be made, however is it morally right to force patients to suffer through misery until their day has finally come? When Healey discusses the Asian perspective on euthanasia, he notes that “in Taiwan and other Asian countries the opposition to assisted dying laws is more rooted in duty. Their societies believe that children are obligated to take care of their parents.” (Healey) While children may be taking care of their parents, these children can only do so much to make their parents, grandparents, and even great-grandparents, feel as comfortable as possible. Also, what happens if these children become ill? Who takes care of the elderly then? Who takes care of the ill children? Discussion about concern with “assisted suicide on the table, exhausted doctors and cash-strapped families might coerce ill family members into taking this cheap, quick way out rather than suffering through further treatments and payments for terminal illness.” (Bruenig) The morbid truth of the matter is, if one cannot afford treatment, they will suffer through less pain thanks to the euthanasia process. At the same time, that person will also be able to end their life not only with dignity and as much comfort as their illness allows, but they will die with the satisfaction and contentment of saving money. They will leave behind excess misery, along with as much assets as possible for your loved ones. “Doctors may help their patients to die a dignified death from natural causes, but they should not kill their patients or help them to kill themselves.” (Anderson) As for doctors and their oath, in which they promise to do all in their power to help each and every one of their patients, it is their duty to better their patient to the best of their knowledge. If the help that patients are pleading for involves ending their pain altogether, while at the same time their cases are terminal, it is only right to assist them in ending their journey. 

All in all, people may believe extremely ill patients should push through the pain, however the most sensible answer involves assisted suicide. If a terminally ill patient is in so much pain or has become so depressed that they can not bear to deal with it anymore, there is no reason why they should be forced to continue a miserable life. Whether people do not support euthanasia due to religion, hope of recovery, their belief that patients are not mentally capable enough, tradition involving taking care of elders, or a doctor’s duty to keep their patients alive, one must figure out what they believe to be the most morally correct, in accordance with their own personal morals and values. The most effective way of deciding whether or not euthanasia is allowed is to put oneself in the position of someone severely ill. If an illness is practically unbearable and/or terminal, what are the odds that one takes advantage of assisted suicide and all of its perks? Euthanasia allows relief for the future, it saves one’s dignity, makes the end of a lifetime more enjoyable, and provides comfort for the families of patients. Euthanasia’s viewpoints vary very much throughout the world, however as much illnesses and experiences are shared, more awareness is being spread. Assisted suicide has been brought to the attention of many, much more often in today’s world. The right to end your life peacefully should not be frowned upon. Throughout the world, citizens either have freedom, or desire freedom with everything in them. If we born free, or currently fighting for freedom, death should be on one’s own terms. Freedom of choice is essential in order to maintain a successful community. Without the power to make your own decisions, it is very difficult to progress in society. At the same time, terminally ill can be considered the final stop before death. Euthanasia will alleviate the misery many patients are currently preparing for or experiencing.  Legalizing euthanasia everywhere will increase convenience, happiness, economics, and even support the Hippocratic Oath, as doctors keep the best interest of their patients in mind. One should not have to experience the deterioration and disintegration of their own body if they prefer death. Criminalizing euthanasia forces many to either commit suicide themselves or move to an area in which it is legal. By putting patients out of their pain, assisted suicide prevents cruelty and protects human rights. Many often look at euthanasia as an allowance of death for anyone who so chooses. The general public must keep in mind that restrictions are involved when it comes to this procedure. A patient must be reviewed before they are given permission to go through with assisted death. At the end of the day, if a patient is in so much physical and mental pain that they choose death over everything, their wishes should be granted. Granting these extreme wishes will make patients everywhere happiest and communities as successful as possible.
