Marya Mannes, an essayist and social critic, once said “euthanasia… is simply to be able to die with dignity at a moment when life is devoid of it.” Physician-assisted suicide, also known as euthanasia, is defined as the act or practice of killing or permitting the death of hopelessly sick or injured individuals in a relatively painless way for the reason of mercy (Euthanasia; State-by-State Guide). Physician assisted suicide should be legal in the United States mainly because it is a human’s individual right to decide what they do with their life. There is a large difference between living and surviving. Living is the pursuit of a lifestyle of a specified type whereas; surviving is to continue to exist, especially in spite of danger or hardship. A person who is merely surviving but not truly living a life may feel it is worse to be painfully surviving than be dead. This is mainly due to the fact that they are no longer living in their desired lifestyle or any desired lifestyle. Humans differ from other species in that they do not just survive, but they also live. This should mean that humans would also value a person’s decision to stop surviving when they no longer are living a life, however this is not the case. Many arguments are made surrounding keeping physician assisted suicide illegal, however the arguments for legalizing are greater. A person’s wellbeing is more important than an irrational law: people should not be forced to live in horrific and debilitating circumstances. Physician-assisted suicide should be legal in the United States because of a person’s individual right to have freedom and right to live a life worth living, not a life unbearably debilitating.

The United States is a well-developed country that is built on freedom and focuses on individual freedom. Yet this powerful and smart nation does not allow suffering patients to choose to end their agony. Many people like to consider the United States a leading nation in the world, however how could a country that does not fully support the foundation of freedom that they are built on, be considered the finest? The Federal Law of the United States prohibits euthanasia under general homicide laws. However, physician-assisted suicide is legal in California, Colorado, Oregon, Vermont, Washington and Washington D.C under state laws. This is still only six states and D.C out of fifty in the whole United States. Other powerful countries, such as Belgium, Netherlands, Japan, Switzerland, Germany, and Canada, have legalized physician-assisted suicide (State-by-State Guide). The astonishing fact is that, these countries were not founded based on the idea of individual freedom, yet they let their citizens have the freedom to choose when the pain and suffering is too much to endure. 

“Dogs do not have many advantages over people, but one of them is extremely important: euthanasia is not forbidden by law in their case; animals have the right to a merciful death” (Kundera 114).  It is perceived that a human’s life holds more value than a dog’s, however, when a dog is euthanized, it is to end their pain and suffering. Thus, humans pain and suffering must not be considered as great since there are no options to end it. If ending a dog’s life is seemed humane, because their quality of life is so low, why do humans in the United States not possess the same ability with their own lives? There are several stories that examine the difficulty of acquiring euthanasia, which show that humans actually do not value individual freedom. It does not make sense that a dog, who does not possess control over their own life, can be perceived as enduring too much pain and suffering to continue living, however a human, who has control of their own, cannot endure enough pain and suffering to allow them to die on their own term.

In 2014, Brittany Maynard was a twenty-nine year old woman who had just married the love of her life. She was living a normal life full of love and joy when all the sudden she began having debilitating headaches. She decided to go her physician to seek an explanation and found out she had a brain tumor. Just a short nine days after her diagnosis she had a surgery to remove the tumor to cure her from the cancer. However, less than four months later the tumor grew back and was more aggressive than before. The doctors gave her a short six months to live. In hopes to prolong her life, she began full brain radiation, which caused her quality of life to decline immensely as she lost her hair, energy and desire to live. Brittany and her family finally came to the realization that there was no treatment that could save her life or even prolong it. All the treatments recommended would only decreased her amount of time alive. She considered living in hospice but despite palliative care she would experience morphine-resistant pain and suffering. Because of the location of the cancer she would also begin to lose important skills such as speech, cognition and motor skills. Due to her youth, her body would be able to hang on for longer, however her brain would become nonfunctional. She would be alive but not truly living. She knew she did not want to put herself or her family through watching her slowly die in agony so she researched dying with dignity, aid-in-dying. She met the criteria of death with dignity in Oregon, one of the few states where it is legal, however she would have to move there which comes with a lot of changes. She had to find a new physician, home, obtain a new driver license, etc. As for her husband, he had to take a leave of absence from his job, which was lucky because most families do not have this opportunity, flexibility or time. She finally obtained the medication that will allow her to die peacefully once taken and died with assistance on November 1, 2014 in Portland, Oregon. She described her situation as “I am not suicidal. I do not want to die. But I am dying. And I want to die on my own terms” (Maynard). Her husband supported her decision throughout everything as he states after her death “Brittany’s symptoms were bad and they were getting worse,” “she did what was right for her and avoided needless suffering and a torturous death” (Egan).  

Palliative care is referred to a lot when talking about physician-assisted suicide.  Those who oppose physician-assisted suicide use palliative care as their main argument against it.  It focuses on “improving life and providing comfort to people of all ages with serious, chronic, and life-threatening illnesses” (Kam). It differs from hospice because it does not only deal with dying patients. Some argue that physician assisted suicide should be illegal because there are new technologies and innovations with palliative care that allow patients to live peacefully and pain free as they die. However, in some cases pain and suffering become too great to be controlled by palliative care, which means that the patient is still suffering greatly despite the physicians efforts. This is one reason why physician-assisted suicide needs to be legal.

The debate about whether death should be an option for dealing with suffering and pain dates back to a time when Jeremy Bentham was a well-known philosopher. He was a key thinker of classical utilitarianism and argued that if life is too much of a burden due to pain and suffering then it is justifiable to end it (Paterson 18), which highlights one of the main arguments for the legalization of physician-assisted suicide. No human should have to endure immense pain and suffering if they do not want to. When one endures great pain, it become debilitating to that individual. In some cases if their pain is great enough, they no long have strength or the desire to get out of bed and carry out daily activities. Being alive is just biological functions taking place in a person’s body that makes their heartbeat, lungs breath and brain function. Living a life is a different story. One who lives a life believes that their life is worth something, has a purpose and does what ones desire. Relying on someone to carry out basic daily function for them is not a great way to live. In Craig Paterson’s book, “Assisted Suicide and Euthanasia: A Natural Law Ethics Approach,” he refers to specific scholars’ arguments about living a life and explains how they all conclude that there is “a significant distinction between being alive and having a life” (20). This distinction is a life of little or no worth and a life worth living. A life full of pain and suffering that debilitating is not a life worth living in any means.

Not only does one endure horrible pain and suffering with physician-assisted suicide being illegal but one also endures expensive treatments that could be avoided by one cheaper fixed cost of euthanasia. The research conducted by Emanuel Ezekiel M.D., Ph.D., and Margaret Battin, Ph.D. examines the potential costs that could be saved by legalizing physician-assisted suicide. These doctors assume that about 2.7% of patients (about 62,000 people) that die each year would choose physician-assisted suicide if it were legal. These 2.7% of patients would undergo an average of four weeks of life and that their last months medical costs would be about $10,118, in 1998 dollars, without inflation. With these circumstances, they estimate that, if physician-assisted suicide were legal, it would save about $627 million annually. According to the study almost three out of every one hundred people who are dying are would chose physician assisted suicide. There has been a recent increase in popularity about this topic, which has caused more people to support it as they become more aware of this issue. This means that today, more people would chose physician-assisted suicide if the situation presented itself.

Focusing on the smaller scale, $10,118 is a lot of money for a patient to spend in the last month of their life. If this patient had a family then their family could possibly be left with debt after their loved ones death, even though it could have been avoided. Some medical bills that are acquired during the last days, weeks, months or years of a patients life are quite substantial and can make a loved one or family endure financial hardships whereas, drugs for assisted dying cost about $75-$100 and will not cause financial disparities (Hamlon and Rita). There is no need to force someone to pay to stay alive when it can be so strenuous to the patients loved one’s financial and emotional standings. These patients have accepted their own mortality and wish to die, however, instead they are forced to pay for care that they do not want and that does not help them.

Although there are circumstances that should prohibit individuals from being able to acquire physician-assisted suicide such as mental incompetence, these are rare instances and should not determine the law for all. There needs to be specific criteria that is outlined with great detail for patients to have in order to be able to get assistance in dying. An example is California’s End of Life Option Act signed in 2015. This made it legal for patients who have a terminal illness who are expected to die within six months to be able to obtain physician assisted-suicide. In order for one to be eligible, one must obtain mental health screenings and have a medical diagnosis that is approved (California Euthanasia Laws). Other than mental health incompetence, a person with a significant illness that causes pain and suffering should have the right to die when they wish.

Paterson explores self-ownership in his book and explains how “everyone is entitled to be treated as the sole owner of his or her life” (22). He reveals, based on this description of self-ownership, that people who choose to commit suicide based on specific medical reasons should be allowed to and should be able to get assistance from physicians (22-23). Dying with dignity is a right that all humans have, even if it means choosing to die. Not only does one have the right to choose how their life is lived or not lived but also one has the right to have one’s choices supported by others (Close and Lesley and Cartwright, 187). This means that people should not let their personal beliefs interfere with the rights of others. No one completely understands what it is like to go through such immense pain and suffering that their will to live completely vanishes. Everyday tasks become everyday struggles and the purpose of their life goes away. This is hard for individuals who do not experience it or do not have a loved one experience, however, they should try to understand and not hinder with others desires.

The Hippocratic oath is one of the oldest binding documents in history written in the late fifteenth century (Tyson). It is the oath taken by physicians to promise to treat the sick to the best of their abilities, preserve patients privacy, and pass on the knowledge of medicine to the next generation. Some individuals argue that physician-assisted suicide should not be legal because of this oath that doctors take. They interpret that this path means a doctor should do no harm. Harm, as a verb, is defined as “physically injure” (Harm).  Abiding by a patients wish of dying is not harmful. It does not cause injury; it allows a patient to die with dignity in the way they want during a horrific time of pain and suffering.  Despite a doctor’s pledge to the Hippocratic oath, a patient should be able to determine the extent of their morality.  If they are enduring extreme pain and suffering, a patient should have the utmost right to decide between a painful survival until an agonizing death or death on their terms.  The Hippocratic oath states “to treat the sick to the best of their abilities” and do no harm, however, what if forcing a patient to extend their life does more harm than good?

Since the founding of the Hippocratic oath, there have been technological discoveries and medical breakthroughs that greatly surpass a physician’s knowledge in the 15th century.  Louis Lasagna, the Dean of the School of Medicine at Tufts University, recently modified the Hippocratic oath in 1964 (Bailey). Most doctors do not spear to the original oath; majority spear to the modified oath (Doctors Aren't Bound). The modernized oath examines how doctors cannot always save a life, some times the best scenario is to end a life: “most especially must I tread with care in matters of life and death. If it is given me to save a life, all thanks. But it may also be within my power to take a life.” In this modern oath it specifically states that the doctor might need to utilize their power to end a life. In some scenarios, the best treatment for a patient is death, if they have a serious illness and wish to end their life.  The crucial and immensely difficult decision should be between a physician and their patient, without any outside interference. 

No one should have more of a right to decide what to do with one’s life than the persons whose life it is. A person’s desire to end their life because of a condition or disease is more important than someone else’s belief that they should not be euthanized. People should not be forced to live a life that is not worth living. Euthanasia allows people to have a degree of control over the debilitating disease or sickness that has taken over their entire lives. Some of these sicknesses cause individuals to be unable to carry out simple daily activities such as making breakfast, going to the restroom, getting out of bed, driving a car and even walking. Once they reach this point of debilitation they are no longer living, they are only surviving. They should have the right to end their incapacitating suffering.  Their life ended the second they became too sick to carry out simple task and maintain a decent quality of living. Humans should value a person’s decision to stop surviving when they no longer are living a life, however this is not the case in the United States. Physician-assisted suicide should be legal in the United States because it is a person’s individual right to have the freedom and the right to not have to live a debilitating life. As Marcus Tillius Cicero once wrote “what then is freedom? The power to live as one wishes.”  If freedom is to live as you wish, then true freedom should mean to be able to die as you wish. 
