
“A law which does not make anybody do anything, that gives people the right to decide, and prevents the state from prosecuting you for exercising your freedom not to suffer, violates somebody else’s constitutional rights is insane” (Cotton 364). We live in the cruel reality that those who are terminally ill in some parts of the United States do not have the freedom of determining when they leave this world because it is not accepted as “Constitutionally” right. Imagine being stuck in your own body undergoing excruciating pain counting down the days you have left to live after being given a life expectancy by a doctor. Day in and day out you and your loved ones are wondering when the time is going to come and day in and day out the pain increases. Every day is a more intense rollercoaster of pain and emotions for you and your loved ones. We have heard many people describe those on their death bed as being “not themselves” and their “soul being gone”. Why lose all the dignity you worked your whole life to gain just because you did not know when your last days were and be forced to leave your loved ones with their last memories of you being on your death bed? There’s a way to leave on your own terms that would allow you to say your proper goodbyes, to prepare your family properly, and to leave this world possessing one of the most important things: your dignity. A death with dignity is also referred to as “physician-assisted death”. Physician-assisted death is the voluntary termination of one’s own life by administration of a lethal substance with the direct or indirect assistance of a physician (MedicineNet). Physician-assisted death should be fully legalized in the United States of America because it is a basic somatic human right, it is the best option for an illness no drug can cure, it would reduce hospital costs left behind for families, and it would offer a compassionate alternative to unbearable suffering. 

This medical procedure was deemed as not being protected under the Constitution in regard to the Due Process clause of the 14th Amendment by the Supreme Court in the rulings of Vacco v. Quill and Washington v. Glucksberg in 1997 (Supreme Court Rulings). But, with the decision of the Washington v. Glucksberg case it granted individual states the right to legalize or criminalize physician-assisted death as they see fit (The Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission). According to the Chronology of Assisted Dying, the first euthanasia bill was drafted in 1906 in Ohio but was not passed. Following the bill denial, the Euthanasia Society of America was created in 1938 by Reverend Charles Francis Porter who began as an evangelical Baptist preacher but formed into a radical Humanist and Unitarian (Dictionary of Unitarian and Universalist Biography). The focus of this group was to attempt to get physician-assisted death legalized in the United States, in which they tried until the 1960s without success (The World Federation of Right to Die Societies). In 1974, the group name was changed and the first American hospice opened in New Haven, Connecticut (Chronology of Assisted Dying). In today’s United States, there are 7 states that have determined this procedure as legal: California, Colorado, Oregon, Vermont, Washington, Montana and Washington DC. Oregon passed their bill by way of Ballot Measure 16 resulting in 51% in favor on November 8th, 1994, making them the first to legalize it (State-by-State Guide to Physician-Assisted Suicide). With the exception of Montana, all the states in which the procedure is legalized possess the same “safeguards” or qualifications; residency is required, the patient must be 18 years of age or older and have a life expectancy of 6 months or less, and the patient must have two oral requests of death at least 15 days apart and 1 written request. Montana’s way of determining if a patient qualifies for physician-assisted death requires a court ruling and residency. The latest news of furthering the legalization of physician-assisted death in the United States was on November 8th, 2016 in Colorado by way of Proposition 106 which resulted in 65% in favor. 

Medical operations, machines, and technology as a whole have advanced to a whole new level. Respirator machines can now breathe for patients to keep them alive along with medications now being available to support and strengthen the basic parts of humans that deal with normal functioning of the body. For those basic parts that are damaged in a person that have genuine chances of surviving these advances in technology and medication have been literal lifesavers. Unfortunately, there’s always the other side. For those patients who are terminally ill these advances in technology and medication have played a major role in keeping those who are terminally ill with no chance of recovering, alive as long as they can, therefore, resulting in suffering. Patients in the past who are terminally ill have approached their doctor asking for the “final” medication that will make all their pain go away; death. For example, Dr. Jack Kevorkian a euthanasia activist was approached by Dr. Ali Khalili, a pain specialist who could get any pain medicine he wanted, to be assisted in his death because in terminal suffering pain medicine is not enough (Cotton 363). Even if pain medicine worked it would still come with an outrageous cost. Hospice provides patients with pain medicine during their final months of illness and can cost up to $10,700 per month, according to America’s Debt Help Organization. "Savings to governments could become a consideration. Drugs for assisted suicide cost about $35 to $45, making them far less expensive than providing medical care. This could fill the void from cutbacks for treatment and care with the 'treatment' of death” (Patients Rights Council). The prolonging of human life is not a cheap casualty and there are only few dying patients that can pay for their final months. “Many people want to save their relatives the expense of keeping them pointlessly alive” (Dworkin 193). What happens when the patients do not have the financial capability to pay for those machines and “comforting” medications? It is left to their families. Obviously, the families do not worry about the cost at the time because of what else is at hand, but that is something they are eventually going to be made to face and financially struggle with. Physician-assisted death would greatly decrease the amount of money that has to be spent in order to end the unbearable suffering. Those who do not support the legalization of physician-assisted death argue that those who are terminally ill that have no money might want to live but choose the assisted death route just because they are financially incapable and do not want to put their family through the financial struggle. This is a valid point but it relates back to the principle that the patient is making the best decision that best suits them regarding every situation they have based upon their life expectancy. 

In order for physician-assisted death to avoid abuse and other controversies, safeguards, or measures taken to protect the non-terminally ill from undesirable things must be implemented. One of many safeguards to ensure that the patient is making the best decision in relation to physician-assisted death is that the patient must go through their family doctor to get the so-called “final drugs”. The family doctor will write the prescription for the medication. The family doctor is being used because they have been seeing them for most of their life and because the doctor has been keeping up with the patient’s terminal illness, so in return they can talk to the patient and give their input so that the patient is not going into this procedure not knowing what is going on. Those against physician-assisted death make the claim that the patient-doctor relationship would be affected negatively due to the fact that the doctor and patient would see and feel that the doctor is “playing God”, meaning, deciding if the patient gets administered the drugs or not. This safeguard would actually have the opposite effect of what those who are against it think. “Patients who are able to discuss sensitive issues such as this are more likely to trust their physicians” (Smith 409). Other points made by those who oppose this law is that it is inconsistent in the doctor’s role of “healing”. A rule that has been applied to the states that have deemed it as legal is that the patient must be the one who is “hands-on” and administers the medication to themselves. The doctor plays no physical role in the administering of the medication, only the prescribing. Another safeguard that has to be put into place is that those who are terminally ill are the only ones who can qualify for assisted death. Those against it are arguing the chance of those who are depressed or maybe have physical problems will use it as a “crutch” or as an “easy way out” of life. Some disability rights advocates, including the group "Not Dead Yet," have warned that the thought of this law’s legalization threatens the lives of people with mental or physical disabilities. But with that being said, that is why there are such things as psychiatrists for those who are mentally ill. One of the safeguards that would be associated with this law is that the patients must be mentally healthy. In order to ensure that this law would not be taken advantage of the United States government would have to implement the proper qualifications to specifically target those who are terminally ill. 

Ethicists are completely against physician-assisted death. Religious or moral beliefs may prevent some people from seeking the assistance of a doctor to speed up their own death. But, should we hold others accountable because of the standards that we choose to live by? With those against the thought of assisted death and opposing the legalization of such procedures are forcing their beliefs onto others who might prefer peace and comfort approaching their time of death. Euthanasia and assisted death are very different. They both involve the use of lethal medications in order to purposely end a patient’s life, but the administration process is different for each. Euthanasia involves someone other than the patient administering the drugs which raises many ethical flags regarding religion and law. On the other hand, physician-assisted death involves the doctor prescribing the lethal medication but the patient actually distributing them to themselves. Physician-assisted death is ethical. Decisions regarding death and personal situations is between the patient and themselves, and physician-assisted death allows you to make your own decisions which supports the autonomy of America. Most of the people in the United States believe in preserving life when they are the ones not terminally ill. In the personal story of Margaret John who decided to end her suffering by way of assisted death she stated, “I know that the time will come when there is no more effective treatment available.” A complete outlaw against assisted death limits personal rights, and freedom of choice is a major ethical belief. Secretive is not seen as ethical. Even though assisted death is not legal everywhere it is still being performed somehow and some way. Hospice does the exact same thing, just at a slower pace. Instead of finding loopholes full legality would allow the Hospice workers to discuss the details of the patient’s situation with the patient, rather than putting that pressure on the family. So with that being said, the legalization of physician-assisted death would allow Hospice to do it in an ethical way instead of finding loopholes in the system.

American citizens have spoken. On May 28th, 2015 a Gallup Poll was taken posing the question, “When a person has a disease that cannot be cured and is living in severe pain, do you think doctors should or should not be allowed by law to assist the patient to commit suicide if the patient requests it?” A Gallup Poll is a recording of public opinion in relation to “top of mind” topics and debates in America. Seven in ten Americans, 68%, voted that doctors should be allowed by law to assist terminally ill patients in death (Gallup). This poll proves the beauty of choices. The 68% of Americans who voted yes would obviously consider being assisted in death if they were terminally ill, and the 32% of Americans that voted no would do just as that. Those who voted yes have the right to do it just as those who voted no have the right not to. The legalization of physician-assisted death would not be an automatic “go to”. There is no such thing as too many choices. Physician-assisted suicide is not trying to be forced on everyone in every situation and that is very important to understand. The fight for its legalization is to simply give those patients another option because when things are terminal, options are slim to none. There will always be disagreements and alternate opinions regarding physician-assisted death and those who do not believe in it will argue that the right to assisted death is not a right that can be given to anyone. This major claim is countered by a judge by the name of Stephen Reinhardt. According to an article in the Houston Chronicle, Judge Reinhardt made his input public on this long-debated topic by saying, “a competent, terminally-ill adult, having lived nearly the full measure of his life, has a strong liberty interest in choosing a dignified and humane death rather than being reduced at the end of his existence to a childlike state of helplessness, diapered, sedated, incompetent” (Beck 36). This statement is the strongest and most simple defense for the right to physician-assisted death. Physician-assisted death is an ingrained right. No man or woman should ever be made to suffer just because he or she is denied the right. The terminally ill also have rights like normal, healthy citizens do. Some patients deny the right to be treated in any way at all and decide to die naturally, so it is only fair for the decision to be granted to do the exact opposite. 

The call to action in legalizing physician-assisted death rests solely upon the voice of the citizens of the United States. Since the supreme court rulings deemed it to be left to the individual states, then overtime states will progress more towards its legalization by following the lead of other states. More positive public exposure and publicized safeguards will help the American people become more knowledgeable about the law and see it as another option available if terminality becomes reality.   

Freedom and options are what makes the United States of America the greatest place to live in the world. Everyone has the right to life, liberty, and security of person (Universal Declaration of Human Rights Article 3). Every human being is granted basic rights immediately upon birth that can never be taken away from them. The basic dictionary definition of “liberty” is the state of being free within society from oppressive restrictions imposed by authority on one’s way of life. Liberty should have no limitation. Being free within society includes the right to make decisions regarding your own body; somatic rights. Physician-assisted death is a somatic right. “My body, my choice” means that if the decision made only affects the decision-makers body, then they should have the right to do it. Some legal examples in the United States that you can make affecting your body include the following: surgeries to remove, implants, and if a woman decides that she wants to bear a child or not. A poll taken on September 21st, 2015 by YouGov posed the question, “Should physician-assisted suicide be allowed for the following patients that are terminally ill with 6 months left to live?” and 54% of the people voted yes. So, why should physician-assisted death continue to be outlawed if America is viewed as the “Land of the Free” and is in majority favor? The right to assisted-death must be freely placed upon those who are terminally ill. This right would allow patients to leave this earth with dignity, along with saving their families from financial ruin, and relieving them of their insufferable pain once and for all.
