In the society we live in, things are constantly changing. Technology is advancing, social and religious status is more acceptable, and medicine is evolving more and more.  So, the question I ask is; why should society not allow the controversial topic of euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide to be legalized and performed?  There is a wide spread debate among society as a whole as to whether these processes should become legal or not.  One side of the argument claims that moral and religious beliefs should overcome the medical and personal choices that an individual should have while the other side feels strongly about the quality of human life and how there should be alternative options available for the pain and suffering if the patient wants it. When conducting research, different personal opinions are seen such as the pros which include; putting an end to suffering and saving cost on medical treatment while the cons include religious beliefs, and pain for loved ones.  By looking at the sources used for this research, we can see that the pros of legalization outweigh the cons, which tells us that euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide should be made legal within the United States, this would allow people to have more decisions over their own life, to be free of pain and to not feel as if they are a burden on loved ones, which is the way any human should be able to feel.  Multiple sources were found during research that are available to support my argument.  Each one is used to separately gather factual information as well as evaluate opinions and views based on credible research data.  When they are all combined, it is seen and can support the statement that society does not agree on the moral aspects and there will be a constant debate on the legalization for much time to come.  The research that I performed allows me to open my mind up to the different facts and opinions of others and helps me to understand that there may never be a "right" answer that satisfies all of society.

Society knows that the legalization of euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide is widely debated but everyone needs to understand exactly what these two topics are and what they mean for patients, loved ones, doctors, and everyone else involved.  We need to know what it is we are debating about before we decide if it should be legal or not.  Many believe that the two processes are the same, and although they are similar, they have different meanings.  The two are defined and distinguished by NHS Choices as; “euthanasia is the act of deliberately ending a person’s life to relieve suffering” (Euthanasia 1) and “assisted suicide is the act of deliberately assisting or encouraging another person to kill themselves” (Euthanasia 4).  Often times these two are interchanged throughout discussions and research. 

Now that the definitions of each have been noted, another aspect of this argument people should understand before trying to determine if we should consider it “okay” or not is the current legal position when it comes to euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide.  It is stated on this source that neither euthanasia nor assisted suicide are legal by English law (Euthanasia 5).  “Depending on the circumstances, euthanasia is regarded as either manslaughter or murder and is punishable by law, with a maximum penalty of up to life imprisonment” (Euthanasia 6).  The Suicide Act of 1961 states that assisted suicide is illegal and if performed it has consequences of up to fourteen years in jail, however; there is no law against attempting to kill oneself (Euthanasia 7).  Since 1997, the five states within the United States that have legalized these processes include Oregon, Washington, Montana, Vermont, and California (Emanuel 11).  Other places that currently have active euthanasia, when someone deliberately intervenes and ends another one’s life, is Belgium, Holland, and Luxembourg (Euthanasia 19).  All three have set specific criteria to be met before the act of euthanasia can be performed.  The criteria that has been made includes that “the person has made an active and voluntary request to end their life, that it is thought that they have sufficient mental capacity, or the ability to use and understand information to make a decision, to make an informed decision regarding their care and that it is agreed that the person is suffering unbearably and there is no prospect for an improvement in their condition” (Euthanasia 21).  Switzerland became the first country to allow assistance for suicide in 1942 under the condition that it was not a selfish act (Emanuel 10).  Though there are several countries or regions that have supported the legalization of physician-assisted suicide and euthanasia, there are many others that continue to debate the pros and cons. 

In my research on physician-assisted suicide and euthanasia it was important for me to consider and try to understand all points of view of those for and against it.  There is a non-profit organization in Canada called “Living with Dignity” that explains why many people feel physician-assisted suicide and euthanasia should not be legalized.  Their mission "is to protect the life and the inherent and inalienable dignity of people who have become vulnerable through illness, old age, or disability, by ensuring they receive compassionate support" (Arguments 1).  The strongest argument presented is that the killing of another human being, regardless of the reason, is still classified as a homicide (Arguments 1).  Putting aside any feelings for or against this controversial topic, I believe that as a whole, all people regardless of where they are from or whatever their race or religion may be, think that every human life matters.  For those that strongly oppose euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide, it is felt that carrying out such a process devalues life and in a sense claims that some lives are worth less than others (Arguments 7).

Another strong argumentative point against the legalization of Physician-Assisted Suicide and Euthanasia is the impact it could potentially have on the performing medical personnel.  There could be legal, moral, emotional and ethical consequences should a physician carry out such a controversial request.  Each physician takes an oath to respect and care for each patient.  The Hippocratic Oath includes "not giving deadly medicine to an individual whether the latter asks for this nor can they suggest such to an ill person" (ConnectUS 10).  Giving patients the "right to die" implies that physicians now have a "duty to kill" (Arguments 5).  This is quite the opposite of what medical practitioners and their patients as a whole believe.  We as patients believe that all doctors are going to diagnosis, treat and cure to the best of their ability and that's what we want.  Medicine is not perfect and neither are human beings which can lead to an inaccurate prognosis.  Critics "contend that there are situations where patients recover expectantly and legalizing Physician-Assisted Suicide is not the answer" (ConnectUS 11).  This is yet another reason those who oppose these processes support palliative care.  "Palliative care intends to neither accelerate nor postpone death" (Arguments 3) this allows death to occur at its natural rate while making sure the ill are comfortable.  Death can be peaceful or very traumatic and according to the opposition, "euthanasia is neither easy nor peaceful" (Arguments 6).  This is said to be true not only for the patients but for the medical practitioners too resulting in the need for psychotherapy or unplanned time off from work to overcome the tragic act of killing someone they are supposed to treat (Arguments 6).  Loss of life can be a traumatic event, one can only imagine the feelings and emotions of being responsible for taking a life.

One other reason that several individuals are against the legalization of these processes is that there are some religious concerns with it.  The YouTube video that provided viewpoints of both sides of the argument states that “life is a God given gift and should therefore be treated with reverence and is not our own to take” (Kan 0:53).  Thou shalt not kill is one of the Ten Commandments in which many religions believe in and support, thus opposing the legalization of physician-assisted suicide and euthanasia.  Looking at viewpoints of others, allows me to really think about how important the points against these processes are and that it is needed to understand both sides completely when talking about the legalization of euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide.

While death at the hands of medical personnel may seem like murder or inhumane to some, there are others that have just as many reasons to support Physician-Assisted Suicide and Euthanasia.  The Bill of Rights of Patients gives a person the right to be treated for illness as well as the right to refuse treatment.  "Supporters of Physician-Assisted Suicide assert that people or patients should be allowed to end their life as part of their right to autonomy" (ConnectUS 6).  Some may argue that a sick patient may not be thinking clearly enough to make decisions on treatment options or end of life care.  Patients have the right to make their medical wishes known before they potentially have their capacity to consent affected by illness (Euthanasia 16).  This can be done by creating a legally binding advance decision or directive.  Such a document "sets out the procedures and treatments you consent to" (Euthanasia 17) allowing you, the patient, to make your own preferences clear including your election of Physician-Assisted Suicide or Euthanasia.

One main point to support the legalization of these practices is that people should have the right to make decisions regarding their health and their own life.  Within another article I found, “Euthanasia and Assisted Suicide”, it is suggested that there are two main arguments that support euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide practices; the ethical argument, and the pragmatic argument (Euthanasia 27).  The ethical argument states “that people should have freedom of choice, including the right to control their own body and life, as long as they do not abuse any other person’s rights, and that the state should not create laws that prevent people being able to choose when and how they die” while the pragmatic argument refers to “euthanasia, particularly passive euthanasia, is allegedly already a widespread practice, just not one that people are willing to admit to, so it is better to regulate euthanasia properly” which is seen with patients that have a Do Not Resuscitate order (Euthanasia 27).  A DNR order is making a decision with the same end result as euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide.  If that can be practiced legally, then why are these two processes seen as something that should not be made legal?  The ethical argument argues that people should be able to choose how their life ends with dignity and that if their quality of life is diminished significantly then they should be able to end their pain and misery (Euthanasia 31).  The right to die with dignity also comes with the right to die in a humane way as suggested in another source; “8 Main Pros and Cons of Legalizing Physician Assisted Suicide” (ConnectUS 5).  Ultimately it is the patient’s life and they should have the right to control their destiny.  It is believed that "sick people who will be dying soon because of medical conditions should not be subjected to prolonged pain" (ConnectUS 5) and physician-assisted suicide would be more humane then allowing the continuous suffering.  

This leads to the next point which is to allow the patient to be free of pain expressed frequently in many of the sources that I found supporting euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide.  The YouTube video “Euthanasia – Should It Be Legalized?” states that one reason people support euthanasia is because it is a “preferred choice over slow, painful and often expensive deaths” (Kan 0:31).  It is stated in “Euthanasia and Physician-Assisted Suicide” that other “cited reasons include not wanting to live in pain, to be dependent on life support machines, or to be unable to perform daily activities” (Gittelman 370).  This is often referred to as "the argument for mercy" (Battin 8) insinuating that ending the unnecessary pain and suffering shows mercy to those who are experiencing it.  Assuming that practices such as physician-assisted suicide and euthanasia are made legal, using it for physical pain relief would potentially be "a last-resort option where pain and symptom control fail" (Battin 9).  No person should have to endure pointless suffering so supporters of physician-assisted suicide ask what happens after all pain management techniques have been exhausted?  Hospice is one option which can treat virtually all pain and relive virtually all suffering, however "virtually" is not "all" (Battin 29).  Complete sedation is another option which leaves the patient unconscious and unable to communicate any type of residual pain.  This option is legal and in a sense very similar to death without actually dying, so why not a more direct method such as euthanasia or physician-assisted suicide (Battin 29)?  “The value of human life, in the face of competing considerations, is said to diminish or wane in quality to the point that intending death becomes a rational choice-worthy option” (Paterson 15).  Pain is not reported as the main motivation for choosing end of life procedures, but it is a large factor influencing the decision process (Emanuel 4). 

Often times, terminally ill patients feel as if they are a burden on loved ones and avoiding this by dying is another aspect that several of the sources pointed out as a pro of euthanasia and assisted suicide. "People who are pushing for the legalization of Physician-Assisted Suicide say that there are terminally ill individuals who feel that they emotionally, physically and financially drain members of the family because of their being sick" (ConnectUS 6).  Gittelman states that “the most frequent hypothetical reason Americans give for possibly choosing euthanasia or PAS is their becoming a burden on their family” (Gittelman 370).  Some even believe that the best way to remove the guilt that they have, would be by ending the hardships all together and the only way to have control over that is with physician-assisted suicide or euthanasia (ConnectUS 6).  Patients often times feel that their families can cope with and will eventually put their passing behind them and move on with life; however, if there is a huge financial burden, it may be harder to overcome and be detrimental to the grieving process (Battin 20).  As one tries to overcome the sadness of losing a loved one, monthly medical bills can serve as a constant reminder of what has been lost and prolong the healing. 

When considering the possible legalization of these processes it is important to not only look at the patient’s opinion but also the public and the physicians’ opinion.  The “American public opinion polls have documented a rise in public favor for the availability of euthanasia and PAS from 35% in 1950 to more than 60% in recent years” (Gittelman 370).  Throughout the same surveys being performed, the general attitude of US physicians about euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide show a substantial amount that support these practices, “with fewer but still a significant percentage willing to perform euthanasia and PAS under some circumstances” (Gittelman 370).  A steady rise in public favor should serve as a direct correlate of how society feels as a whole and should be taken into consideration since the general public are those that are directly affected. 

The legalization of euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide is a widely debated topic that often times people feel passionate about.  The sources mentioned above provide several reasons as to why these processes should be legalized, including; giving people the option to make decisions for themselves during the end of their life, choose if they end their pain from being terminally ill, and to not feel like they are putting an emotional and financial burden on the ones that they love.  The option of euthanasia and assisted suicide will allow patients a different option and will minimize their problems during the end of their lives.  If these processes do become legal, it is important to make sure it is only being used in the cases necessary.  Euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide should be made legal for terminally ill patients as long as they are in the mental capacity to make that decision.  Not only potential patients care about the outcome of this controversial topic, but also physicians and family members.  All life is valuable and the quality of life is just as important to many.  While we do not know what our futures hold, we do know that death is inevitable for all and if there is a way to make the dying process easier maybe it is worth the discussion.
