In the last century, there have been major advances in the diagnosis, treatment, and

prevention of disease. These developments have contributed to an increase in life expectancy.

Unfortunately, a long life doesn't preclude a death without suffering (Balkin 1). The longer
someone lives, the more likely they are to suffer with a debilitating disease, such as cancer.
Some people long for release through death because pain has robbed them of their quality of life.
No one would sit by idly as their dog quivered in pain, and yet we're willing to do so with our
aging population and terminally ill patients.
One fundamental argument in support of assisted suicide is respect for autonomy. People
should be allowed to determine their fates, especially in regards to personal matters such as
health and quality of life (Preston et al. 1). However, some critics claim that people requesting
assistance in dying aren't mentally stable. A physical condition may compromise a patient's
knowledge, understanding, ability to reason, and ethics (Mayo et al. 2). Although it's a valid
concern, living wills resolve this issue. A living will can be used to refuse life-prolonging care
after one becomes terminally ill. A recent case in Pennsylvania shows the impact that a living
will can have. Mr. King, a 72-year-old Alzheimer's patient, wasn't given a feeding tube. When
his wife requested one, her decision was overrided by Mr. King's will, made seven years
previously. The will stated that he did not want tube feeding or any other artificial invasive
form of nutrition (Top 10 Pros and Cons 5). Control over one's death is already limited by
hereditary and environmental factors. It should not be further limited by the state.
The Hippocratic Oath is commonly mentioned by those who oppose assisted suicide. It
states that doctors should do no harm. However, the oath is outdated. Scholars attribute it to
Hippocrates, a Greek scholar and physician that lived sometime between the 3rd and 5th centuries.
The oath has been modified countless times as its tenets became less acceptable (Top 10 Pros

and Cons 2). For example, references to doctors not breaking skin and women not studying
medicine have been deleted. Stephen R. Reinhardt, a Judge on the US Court of Appeals, has
much to say on the matter:
In Roe [v. Wade], the Court cited a scholar's conclusion that the Hippocratic Oath
'originated in a group representing only a small segment of Greek opinion and that it
certainly was not accepted by all ancient physicians.' The Court stressed the Oath's
'rigidity' and was not deterred by its prohibitory language regarding abortion. As Roe
shows, a literalist reading of the Hippocratic Oath does not represent the best or final
word on medical or legal controversies today...not only would doctors be barred from
performing abortions or helping terminally ill patients hasten their deaths, but
according to a once-accepted interpretation, they would also be prohibited from
performing any type of surgery at all, a position that would now be recognized as
preposterous by even the most tradition-bound AMA members. (Do Euthanasia and
Physician-Assisted Suicide Violate the Hippocratic Oath? 1)

The reference to do no harm has also been called into question. If a patient is terminally ill
and trying to cope with excruciating pain, death is a kindness. Prolonging a person's life in this
instance would surely be doing harm.
Brittany Maynard was 29 years old when she was diagnosed with grade 4 astrocytoma, a
form of brain cancer. She was given a prognosis of six months to live. After being married for
just over a year, her life dissolved into a constant flurry of doctor visits, surgeries, and
consultations. Even with palliative medication, Brittany feared developing morphine-resistant
pain, suffering personality changes, and experiencing cognitive and motor loss. At the same

time, she didn't want her family watching her suffer; I'm choosing to suffer less. To put myself
and my family through less pain. Brittany decided to die with dignity. With only six months to
live, Brittany made the stressful decision to move to Oregon with her family. The state was one
of five in America where assisted suicide was legal. Once there, she had to find new doctors,
establish residency in Portland, search for a new home, obtain a new driver's license, change her
voter registration, and enlist people to take care of her pets. Her husband, Dan, had to take a
leave of absence from his job. Most families in America don't have the flexibilty or resources to
make such a move. As such, Brittany has become a prominent face in America's right-to-die
debate (Maynard 1). In her final moments, Brittany raised her voice on behalf of aid in dying, so
that others could have access to this end-of-life option everywhere. She shared her story through
videos created by Compassion and Choices, the largest organization for the right-to-die
movement. Because of Brittany, her family and friends, and the millions of Americans moved to
action by her story, death-with-dignity legislation was introduced in half of all US states this
year.
In a society that obsesses over health care costs, some people believe that legalizing
assisted suicide would lead to murder. Edmund D. Pelligrino, MD says about the matter, If
terminating life is a benefit, the reasoning goes, why should euthanasia be limited only to those
who can give consent?(Top 10 Pros and Cons 2) Of course, this argument has flaws.
Euthanasia comes from the Greek for good death. Merriam Webster defines it as the act or
practice of killing someone who is very sick or injured in order to prevent any more suffering
(Euthanasia). Killing someone without consent is by definition, murder, not euthanasia. In the
United States, assisted suicide is legal in Washington, Oregon, Vermont, New Mexico, Montana
and California (State-by-State Guide 1). Policies exist in each of these states to make sure that

slippery slope dangers don't occur. In general, a patient requesting assistance in death must
make three requests (two oral and one written). The requests must be fifteen days apart and the
patient must be suffering from a terminally ill condition with a life expectancy of six months or
less. Two doctors also need to agree on the diagnosis, the prognosis of the disease, and the
capability of the patient. In Oregon, these rules have ensured that patients are well-informed in
regards to their condition and committed to their decision to die (State-by-State Guide 3).
From 1997 to 2012, only 673 patients chose to die with lethal injections prescribed by doctors in
Oregon (673 Chose Assisted Suicide In 15 years In Oregon). Restrictions can easily rectify the
slippery slope argument in regards to euthanasia.
Many legal practices are euthanasia in all but name. Passive euthanasia has come to
describe situations in which medical treatment is withdrawn with the intention of causing a
patient's death. For example, a do not attempt cardiopulmonary resuscitation (DNACR) order
can be made by a patient if they don't want to receive treatment when their heart stops beating or
when they stop breathing. Other forms of passive euthanasia include turning off life-supporting
machines, disconnecting feeding tubes, and withholding life-extending drugs. There isn't a
difference between euthanasia and letting someone die. Turning off a dialysis machine (passive
euthanasia) yields the same result as giving a lethal injection (active euthanasia). Both actions
result in the death of a patient, so passive euthanasia isn't more humane than active euthanasia.
Some philosophers could argue that active euthanasia is more humane, because it can be faster,
cleaner, and less painful for a suffering patient (Top 10 Pros and Cons 1).
Sometimes ending suffering takes priority over extending life. Euthanasia causes an
anguishing conflict between values. Life is a gift, but circumstances may turn it into a deep
hopelessness, filled with suffering and pain. We want to live happy joyful lives, but sometimes

death may be preferable to the continuation of a life of suffering and agony. Morality does not
allow us to kill, but it does require us to be compassionate and merciful. Although we must make
every effort to deter abuse of euthanasia, we must also, at the patients request, allow them to
make the choice to end their suffering, rather than to require them to endure a joyless, agonizing
life.
Euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide have sparked intense debates in the past few
years. Although opponents of these issues have good points, they don't compare to those made
by proponents. Competent, terminally ill people deserve the right to a death with dignity (Top
10 Pros and Cons 1). Americans should enjoy a right guaranteed in the European Declaration
of Human Rights-the right not to be forced to suffer. No one gives us permission to live, so why
must we ask for it in order to die?