Asking a doctor to respect an individual’s desire to live is expected, but what about their request to die? Several countries around the world have legalized euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide to help their patients find a peaceful death. These practices end patient suffering and enable people to experience a dignified death in their chaotic world. Although a controversial topic, six states in the United States have legalized physician-assisted suicide. This option is given to individuals with a terminal disease and a prognosis of six months or less to live (Freeman). However, the conversation does not end there. Euthanasia has been a topic of debate over the years for its similarities to physician-assisted suicide. The opposition says that euthanasia is murder, an easy way out, or that it leads to more killing in general. However, every argument used against euthanasia fails to achieve the goal of morally distinguishing it from physician-assisted suicide. The similarities between these two practices enables the legalization of voluntary active euthanasia in states where physician-assisted suicide is already legal and throughout the United States.

Euthanasia has several defining terms but is generally explained as the always intentional painless killing of a patient when medicine is no longer beneficial. It seeks to find an alternative to suffering for terminally ill patients but can be further clarified using several different terms. In fact, many of the moral and legal objections are centered around the distinctions between involuntary, nonvoluntary, and voluntary euthanasia (Stoyles 674). Involuntary euthanasia occurs when the patient does not request to be euthanized.  An example of this situation could arise in a hospital for soldiers at war. If one soldier comes into the hospital screaming in agony and the doctor knows he has no painkillers, no way to help him, and knows he will die in half an hour, decides to shoot the soldier himself.  Although many consider this to simply be murder, determining the morality of the situation is very complex. Nonvoluntary euthanasia occurs when the patient is unable to make the decision themselves due to situations like a being in a coma, cognitive impairment, or being too young to make any decisions at all. Voluntary euthanasia occurs when the patient requests to die and is aided by a physician in some way (Stoyles 674). This branches further into active and passive euthanasia. To be considered passive euthanasia, there are three necessary conditions: the withholding of life-prolonging treatment, withholding this treatment for the purpose of hastening death, and the reason for hastening death is in the patient’s own best interests (Garrard). Active euthanasia is when death is brought about by a physical act made by the physician. Often, this act is a lethal injection into the patient, but other options are available around the world (Freeman). This is different from physician-assisted suicide because the action is performed by the physician for the patients, whereas in physician-assisted suicide the patients themselves must take the lethal dose of medication and the physicians only role is prescribing it. The similarities between physician-assisted suicide and voluntary active euthanasia are minimal and only serve to help the patient.  

In 1942, Switzerland became the first country to legalize their own form of physician-assisted suicide. Their law stated that as long as there was no selfish motive by the assisting physician, then they had the legal permission to do as the patient requested. Following their example in 2002, the Netherlands and Belgium legalized both physician-assisted suicide and euthanasia. The United States left the decision to the states, and starting with Oregon in 1997, six states have legalized physician-assisted suicide (Emanuel). Since the beginning of the legalization of physician-assisted suicide, the approval rate for it and euthanasia has almost doubled. A survey taken by Gallup, a company well-known for its public opinion polls, revealed that the support for euthanasia has increased from 37 percent in 1947 to 64 percent in 2012 (Emanuel). This growing acceptance of euthanasia is important because it confirms that euthanasia is becoming something that people feel is a necessary right to have.  

Consequently, painful situations still arise in states where euthanasia is not yet legalized. For example, Diane Pretty, a wife and mother, was diagnosed with a motor neuron disease and forced to leave this world the one way she dreaded, choking and suffocating. Diane’s disease “left her mind as sharp as ever, but it gradually destroyed her muscles, making it hard for her to communicate with her family. It left her in a wheelchair, catheterized and fed through a tube” (Pretty). Due to her illness, she could not carry out her wishes to die a quick and peaceful death; she needed the assistance of a physician to do it for her. However, since euthanasia is illegal, her last wish could not be granted. Diane’s case is not the only one like this. People all around the United States suffer daily with no way to end their pain. Like Diane Pretty, there are men and women who must endure the physical limits their bodies set on them. Although their minds are fully functioning, they are unable to administer the medication themselves and therefore unable to attain their final dream of a death with their dignity still intact.  

The guidelines and safeguards made for physician-assisted suicide in the United States are very specific. The individual must be at least 18 years old, living with a terminal disease, and have a prognosis of six months to live when the first request is made. A second request can be made 15 days following the first, and there must be a full “48-hour waiting period between a final written request and dispensing of the prescription” (Emanuel). Throughout this process, physicians evaluate the patient to confirm that they fully understand the decision being made. The guidelines made for euthanasia could be modeled after the physician-assisted suicide laws preserving the important aspects of age and mental capacity, but allowing those who cannot participate in physician-assisted suicide to maintain the same rights. The legalities of euthanasia should be made similar to those of physician-assisted suicide. Due to the increased role of the physician, there is often concern that legalizing euthanasia will set them up for failure. Physicians fear the law, when in reality, if they follow the steps set before them correctly, the law should be set up to protect them. Along with patient rights, physicians should obtain the “legal liberty…to provide or refrain from providing medical assistance” (Wellman 21). Granting physicians the right to refuse could relieve some objections. Those who feel that euthanasia is not something they can handle, have the option to say no without depriving someone else of their right.  

Physician-assisted suicide allows patients a dignified death and a relief of suffering but it is unintentionally discriminatory towards some. Voluntary active euthanasia should be made available for those who are physically incapable of self-administering medication, or for those who prefer a physician to do it (Dixon 29). Paralysis, Parkinson’s, and Huntington’s are just a few examples of what patients could be suffering from, preventing them from properly ingesting the medication. A study taken in the Netherlands, where both practices are available, proved that overall euthanasia yields better results for the patient. Physician-assisted suicide tends to generate more complications such as technical problems, problems with completion, or general complications such as nausea or spasms (Emanuel). In euthanasia, the physician is able to inject the medicine themselves and monitor the patient so that everything runs smoothly. In many physician-assisted suicide cases, physicians were required to intervene. 

Although euthanasia reaches a larger group of patients, the similarities between physician-assisted suicide and euthanasia allow for a strong argument in the legalization of euthanasia where physician-assisted suicide is already legal. The relationship between the patient and physician remains one of the most important aspects of both processes. The physician is careful to keep both the patient’s and the family’s best interest in mind, and careful not to encourage what is not necessary. There is no significant moral difference between the two: providing the get away car does not make someone less responsible for the robbery than the person inside stealing the money. These two practices are similar not only in their process but also in their message. When men and women fight for physician-assisted suicide, they are fighting for the patient’s rights. They understand that not everyone has the same religious views, values, or opinions. Legalizing physician-assisted suicide results in legalizing basic bilateral liberties (Wellman 20). Bilateral rights means that the freedom to do one thing entails the freedom not to do another. Therefore, if there is a right to life, then there is a right to death. Both euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide fight for these rights to be respected. 

Several arguments surrounding active euthanasia involve the role of the physician. They claim that since physician-assisted suicide places control into the patients hands to perform the final act, it qualifies their actions to be more likely autonomous and less likely influenced by external pressures, such as social or economic issues (Dixon 26). However, just like physician-assisted suicide, voluntary active euthanasia is done by the physician at the patient’s request. Although the final method differs between the two, it has no significant effect on the patient’s control over the situation. At any point in the process of voluntary active euthanasia, from when discussions begin to the moment when the physician gives the lethal injection, the patients is free to change their mind and remove themselves from the process (Dixon 26). Another rationalization used for physician-assisted suicide is that it morally separates the physician from the situation. However, both practices require an active role by the physician, and therefore in both situations, the physicians share responsibility for the patient’s death. These arguments prove that the only difference between voluntary active euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide is who performs the final act; therefore, the states that have legalized physician-assisted suicide should legalize voluntary active euthanasia.  

Medicine has made so many advancements throughout the years that doctor’s responsibilities have changed. As stated before, there are six states in the United States that have physician-assisted suicide legalized (Freeman). These states allow physicians to legally prescribe a lethal dose of medication to terminally ill patients who have requested to die. For many, this brings to question a doctor’s oath to the patient to “do no harm” (Murray). In a familiar situation, this oath would mean the doctor doing everything possible to heal their patient of their sickness without intentionally hurting them. However, regarding patients who predict a painful death due to a terminal disease, living may cause more harm than dying. Medicine has found a way to prolong life, but if that life is filled with pain and melancholy, then patients should have the right to end it (Warraich). If there is a right to refuse medical treatment, why not a right a die? The responsibility of a doctor is to offer all the information they have on a patient, for the patient. This information allows the patient to make a free and informed decision based on their needs and what they desire. 

Although many of the arguments in favor of prohibiting euthanasia are numerous, they are also easily refutable. A common argument revolving around the morality of ending someone’s life, insists that it is a rejection of the importance and value of human life. However, others may feel that dying with their dignity intact is the most respectable act that can be done for their body and sense of self (Wellman 24). Accepting another’s beliefs as legitimate does not require giving up one’s own values. Throughout history, the majority have influenced the final decisions: whether that be through voting, accepted beliefs, or restrictions set on those around them. In some cases, this makes sense; however, just because they are the majority, it does not necessarily mean they are right. The majority of the nation should not lessen the values of the minority. The beliefs of all should be recognized and discussed even if it opposes the views thought to be the norm. Some argue that the decision to even enter this process is too rash. They believe that one day, a medication or treatment will come along and improve that person’s condition. However, with how far medicine and science as a whole have come, the odds that the physicians cannot correctly diagnose a patient terminally ill are slim. Legalizing euthanasia is not insisting that every terminally ill patient give up hope and find an easy way out. It is simply arguing for those who have accepted death, want to end their lives autonomously, or not be killed by the thing they hate most. Another argument made against euthanasia is that legalizing it will lead to patients abusing it. However, studies taken throughout Europe, where voluntary active euthanasia is legalized, prove that through the years, although numbers increase due to population increase, euthanasia is not being abused by its patients (Emanuel).

The remaining 44 states that refuse to adopt either practice out of fear, continue to deprive their people of their liberty. People suffering daily from a disease that no medicine can alleviate continue to be told that their right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness will not be fulfilled. Without the legalization of euthanasia, restrictions are set on how much control one has over their body. Those suffering from debilitating diseases, who are unable to even feed themselves, are told that they cannot be helped to move on, because the morality of the situation is a bit controversial. These men and women are unable to be liberated because of the fear of others. Although fear is sometimes helpful, when it is due to the lack of knowledge or understanding on a subject it is detrimental. Instead of fighting a natural right, we should be learning what exactly euthanasia is, and how it can be incorporated into society. All basic liberties are bilateral (Wellman 20). The freedom to do one thing entails the freedom not to do another. Bilateral liberty means if there is a right to life, then there is a right to death. 

As the late Supreme Court Justice, William Brennen put it, “Dying is personal…and it is profound. For many, the thought of an ignoble end, steeped in decay, is abhorrent. A quiet, proud death, bodily integrity intact, is a matter of extreme consequence.” For some, euthanasia is a comfort, a way to stop dreading dying and learn to accept it. Perhaps just knowing that there is a choice of whether to continue on or die in peace at their chosen time will relieve anxiety and extend a life. Either way, euthanasia is an inherent right and should be treated as such. To this date, there have been few problems with legalizing physician-assisted suicide. If the laws made for euthanasia are modeled after those laws, then there should be little room for failure. The United States has had a history of denying rights to diverse groups. Legalizing voluntary active euthanasia throughout the states is a way for the government to fulfill their promise of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness; even if that leads to death. Doctor’s are told to adhere to patient’s requests, how is death any different?
