 Recently in the media the topic of euthanasia and physician assisted suicide has been repeatedly popping up. This makes sense because this topic concerns people all over the States, it has recently gained a lot of exposure because of the now six states who have legalized it. The debate that goes back and forth regarding this is where the line between dying and killing exists. These two procedures are brought up together in most cases meanwhile, they are not synonyms. Physician assisted suicide is the act of suicide by a patient facilitated by means (as a drug prescription) or by information (as an indication of a lethal dosage) provided by a physician who is aware of the patient's intent. Euthanasia by definition is the painless killing of a patient suffering from an incurable and painful disease or in an irreversible coma. Currently in the United States overall, Euthanasia and Physician Assisted suicide are illegal. However, in Oregon and select other sates it is legal. The “Death with Dignity Act” is the legislation that was passed in Oregon in 1997.The main question that should be used when discussing this is will Euthanasia and Assisted suicide help or hurt the 2.3 million Americans who die each year? (Emanuel). Assisted suicide and Euthanasia should be illegal based on the religious predicament it causes and the conflicts it causes with the ethics of medicine. 

Religion has been around since the beginning of time in many forms. Today we have many different versions each with their own set of beliefs. Another big reason against the legalization of physician assisted suicide and euthanasia is that it’s against the ideals of the catholic church and other religions that have similar values. Most religions have similar views on human life. Buddhism and Hinduism both heavily believe in the afterlife and the reincarnation of one’s soul. The present life on earth is to prepare one for the afterlife, “artificially shortening life in order to relieve physical suffering in the short term may actually increase existential suffering in the long term” as said by Cristina Traina an assistant professor at Northwestern University in the Department of Religion. In the Catholic Church “both suicide and killing the innocent are forbidden” (Traina). These ideals directly contradict with the legalization with physician assisted suicide and euthanasia. Religion is powerful for many people in the United States, and if they are told it is against their laws the amount of people will not entertain the idea of said practice would be high. If the government were to try and enact a law allowing euthanasia and physician assisted suicide with its prospective checks and balances, there would be an uproar form the religious communities and potential protests or worse.

 When becoming a legalized medical physician one must take an oath known as the Hippocratic Oath. This oath is taken over and over again by new doctors because it like the code or law in the medical field. In the Hippocratic Oath, it is stated that, “I will keep [the sick] from harm and injustice. I will neither give a deadly drug to anybody who asked for it, nor will I make a suggestion to this effect” (Anderson). Physician Assisted Suicide and euthanasia directly violate the oath a doctor takes before they begin practicing. Instead of taking actions to aid a patient directly or indirectly in suicide a doctor can “help their patients to die a dignified death from natural causes” (Anderson) in other words make the comfortable as the illness takes their life. The original statures for medicine will have to be redefined when “permitting the tools of healing to be used as techniques for killing” (Anderson). The patient doctor relationship will have a backfired effect as the trust once created disappears as the doctor is legally allowed to over drug a patient if it is requested. There will be many precautions put into place in order to prevent this, but that trust issue will still be around. A doctor may lose credibility with other patients as they were willing to and followed through with the treatment of helping a patient to die. Human dignity is a key phrase when discussing the ethics involved with these procedures. As Anderson, a writer with a Ph.D. who researches bioethics, religious liberty and the philosophy of politics, put it " A legal system that allows assisted suicide abandons the natural right to life of all its citizens.”

Medical research is an important field in society in this day and age. Cures to diseases come from the work of the research foundations.  Each year fundraisers are put on to help promote the foundations searching for the cure, fund them, and spread awareness of diseases. If this were to be legalized all hopes of a cure could slowly begin to disappear. People would begin to terminate their lives when they find out that they only have a short time to live or if they are stuck with a horrible illness that will slowly kill them over years to come. As people begin to die shortly after receiving the diagnosis’s the money that is poured into to researching for a cure would begin to dwindle. There is no point in looking for a cure for an illness that people are not living with and making it a rare illness, “if an illness is rare it gets less funding” (St. Claire). In this case choosing the option to die would leave a small number of patients in need of the cure, and the funding would be cut. As the money to find a cure slowly dissipates so will the research and work for the cure. 

Doctors are human beings which means they are capable of human error. Hence, there is always the possibility of a mistake or error to be made when diagnosing patients. While medicine is a science not all of it is an exact science. A doctor can tell a patient they have six months to a year to live, and they could pass away in four months or if they are so lucky out live the time window given. Based on these potential possibilities it is hard to define terminal when using it as a perimeter for the ability to receive the euthanasia or physician assisted suicide procedures. This was the case for J.J. Hanson who was a 33-year-old marine from New York. Hanson was diagnosed with Brain cancer and given a prognosis of 4 months to live, at most a year.  During the next couple months, he lost his ability to talk as well as walk. He admits he briefly contemplated taking his own life. However, now roughly two years after his diagnosis and after finishing his chemo treatments “he heads the Patient Rights' Action Fund Against aid in dying” (Braver). After hearing this amazing story one cannot believe that e case would be so lucky too beat these odds and out last their prognosis. However, at the same time once one receives a prognosis regarding this it can be easy to give up and not continue fighting. This rash decision can lead to premature deaths. With the legalization of euthanasia and physician assisted suicide, giving up would be a lot easier, because there would be a way out (Braver). While this may only be, a speculation based on the human emotion it should still play a role in this decision. This way would make it easy and less expensive as opposed to a real treatment plan. The easy way out would be to give up and use the option of physician assisted suicide. 

The criteria that would be needed in order to complete this type of treatment would be extensive, presumably. Presently some states say one must be 18 or older to even have this right. Dying is something that can be done at any age. If someone younger than 18 cannot also have this opportunity than someone 18 older should not be allowed to have the choice either. Is one life more important than the other? All life should be equal as it is a God given right. Dying at any age is a terrible thing as one’s life on earth ends, however it should not be expedited with a drug because of a terminal disease. Even if only 18 and older can request it, would parents be able to request it for their children? There are many more question like this that would surround the legalization of this procedure. Soon this can lead to children being killed, in the Netherlands physician assisted suicide now includes mercy killings for deformed babies (St. Claire). This never was the plan but seeing how it has already played out in another country should show the States why these procedures should not be legalized.

Currently there are 6 states that have passed laws regarding the legalization of Euthanasia and physician assisted suicide. Oregon was the first in 1997 then followed by Washington, Vermont, and Montana. Recently California and Colorado have passed laws as well. Each of these acts have their own requirements of the patient requesting the procedure. They all share some common criteria such as they have to be terminal, the patient must request multiple times, some in different forms such as verbally asking and/or a written request, amongst others that are put in place to protect both the physicians and patients. This process can be long and tedious and sometimes take up to 6 months or more. There have been cases where a patient has requested the assisted suicide but had passed away before the procedure because the checks of the system had taken so long. In the end the patient died of the disease in other words “natural causes” and the procedure was unnecessary.

There is a push for the legalization of euthanasia and physician assisted suicide in the United States. The Death with Dignity Act of 1997 passed in Oregon “allows physicians to write prescriptions for lethal drugs when patients qualify” (Span). Those in favor of legalizing these acts claim that it is an end to suffering for a patient and their family, and use the idea that “Medicine is supposed to alleviate the suffering that a patient undergoes” (De La Torre) as support. The legalization for these procedures would just give another option for patients to entertain as a form of “treatment”. There is no argument against this, ending one’s life would irreversibly stop the pain forever and the family would no longer have to watch them suffer. “This right would allow them to leave this earth with dignity, save their families from financial ruin, and relieve them of insufferable pain” (De La Torre). However, based on the way Oregon and the other states have set up this process, patients could be waiting a minimum of six months for this relief. The patient at this point will be in the hospital for this time they are receiving the best care and some who are terminal may not make the six-month weight. Esther De La Torre, a family medical physician in Texas, is in favor for legalizing these treatments. De La Torre’s background displays she has experience and the knowledge to be able to discuss this topic.  In her article, she argues that the price to keep a loved on alive is too costly and when they pass, “the family has to struggle with a huge hospital bill and are often subject to financial ruin” (De La Torre). There is no way to know if this will be less expensive in the end because there is no way to tell how long they may have needed medical treatment and what treatments would have been performed. “Legalization would inevitably generate abuses”, patients would now have the potential to be coerced into requesting this “treatment” (Emanuel). Insurance companies would save money based on this “slippery slope where the vulnerable are threatened and where premature death becomes a cheap alternative to palliative care”, those who are have low income maybe be pressured into using this (The Economist). The idea of autonomy comes up quite often when discussing benefits of the legalization of these procedures. When one no longer has autonomy or ability to control/make decisions for the themselves, some believe there is no longer a willingness to live. Unless stated prior to the loss of autonomy no one can make that decision for a patient who has reached that level. 

In the Ted Talk “Let’s Talk About Dying” Peter Saul discusses the idea of dying in the 21st century and his experiences with it. Peter Saul is a senior intensive care specialist and works the ICU for adults and children. He talks about how everyone should have a plan if they become terminally ill. Saul brings up a great point and potential solution to these problems of swallowing the pill of expensive medical bills, what should happen one loses their ability to speak or think clearly, their autonomy would no longer be valid either. There are many other issues that come with being diagnosed as terminal. If plans were created before a patient became terminal many of the uses/ needs of euthanasia and physician assisted suicide would not be needed as a plan would have been set in place. Physician assisted suicide can sound like the only option when backed into a corner after being notified of how serious one’s condition may be.  However, having a plan can take away that anxiety of what to do and put the patient at ease as they await a death of natural causes. This may not seem important in life now but one day it will be and it always to be as prepared for the day if it ever comes in order to be able to have a good clear decision that works for the patient and their family.

As the author, Howard Ball put it in his book, At Liberty to Die: The Battle for Death with Dignity in America, “when the brain dies there is no coming back”. Physician assisted suicide and euthanasia are permanent methods to fix most likely permanent problems. Once the procedure has been completed whether it’s through pills, liquid drinks, injections or etc. There is not a second chance. The societal hams that will be caused by the legalization of euthanasia and physician assisted suicide outweigh any of the potential benefits. Elders and the disabled will begin to feel like burdens to their families or the patient could feel they are burdening their family and in either scenario there will be an easy cure for it with these procedures. All doctors take an oath before they begin practicing that specifically states they will not aid in a suicide of a patient. As a medical physician, one is entrusted to save life not kill it. It is unethical for a doctor our societies healing personal to aid their patients in self killing.  While it is ethically wrong for these procedures to be legalized it also against many religious beliefs. Quite a few religions believe in the afterlife.  A lot of times the afterlife is dependent on the deeds done here on earth. When one shortens their time on earth unnaturally they run a risk of suffering eternally in the afterlife as believed by certain religions such as Hinduism and Buddhism.  In most religions killing and suicide are against the laws and are sometimes believed to be punished in eternity. The legalization of these procedures also has the ability to easily take advantage of the weak and poor in the country. There are many issues that would have to be confronted when discussing the legalization of euthanasia and physician assisted suicide. In the end, every human has a right to life liberty and property. Euthanasia and physician assisted suicide threaten to remove life from the equation for some people. While everyone deserves to die with dignity it should not be done by suicide, where the patient is consciously killing themselves or is being killed. By legalizing physician assisted suicide and euthanasia, all of these issues and negatives effects will no longer be what if’s, they will be the new reality of the Unites States, the physiocratic patients, the disabled , deformed all gone for the potential of a few lives to be ended because they feel they will die with dignity.
