Should euthanasia be an option for people in need?
Known as the practice of assisted suicide by intentionally ending a life, euthanasia is a controversial and disputed subject, meaning easy or good death. Euthanasia’s medical definition is defined as the act or practice of killing terribly sick or injured people in a painless way or allowing them to take less than the medically approved procedures necessary to lengthen their life, for reasons of mercy. (Death Talk, pg. 101-102) Considered by many to be a form of murder being morally and ethically wrong by devaluing one’s life, euthanasia can serve a purpose. When there are no other alternatives to relieve suffering patients, they should then be allowed to have opportunity to choose euthanasia as an option.
There are different variations of euthanasia known as passive, active, physician assisted and non-voluntary. Passive euthanasia is withdrawing life-sustaining treatments or withholding them with the slow intention of causing the patient’s death. In other words, a doctor can disconnect feeding tubes; turn off life support machines, not performing life-prolonging procedures, or not giving drugs to the patient. (Euthanasia: A Reference Handbook, pg. 2)
Active euthanasia is the act of taking particular measures to cause the patient’s death, achieved by the request of the patient. Often times when it comes to active euthanasia, it is done by request. (Euthanasia: A reference Handbook, pg. 2) The difference between passive and active euthanasia is that in passive no one is actually killing anyone, but rather not preventing the person from dying. An example of active euthanasia is of Dr. Jack Kevorkian, who administered a lethal injection into one of his patients. (Write to Death, pg. 20)
Physician-assisted euthanasia, also known as voluntary euthanasia is when a patient requests that his or her doctor prescribe or provide them with the tools, with the clear intent and understanding that this will lead to their death. Physicians involved in this type of euthanasia do not control anything only provide the medication. (Death Talk, pg. 106) Dr. Kevorkian was also known to have played a role in many voluntary suicides where patients were suffering from cancer, depressions and other types of pain for which they wanted to end their life. In these cases, Dr. Kevorkian assisted these patients by providing the equipment and having them attached to a machine that he create. (Write to Death, pg. 19)
Non-voluntary euthanasia is when a patient’s life is ended without the patient's consent or knowledge. (Death Talk, pg. 120) In most cases when it comes to euthanasia the patient is unconscious, not able to speak, respond physically, too sick and weak to be alert of their surroundings, so they then can’t take action on their own or even make decisions. The obvious difference with voluntary and non-voluntary euthanasia is that in voluntary the patients make the decision for themselves. With non-voluntary euthanasia, it takes another person to make the decisions for the patient’s life and whether it is in their best interest to continue living or have them killed. In the popular case of Terri Schiavo, who had a collapsed from cardiac arrest, eventually suffering brain damage, had her feeding tubes removed from her to end her life. A decision made by her husband who saw no improvement in her physical and mental state in which Terry’s parents did not approve, fighting him believing she was conscious through many pleas, only to lose. (At liberty to die, pg. 53)
There are certainly several options available for patients, but the argument remains the same whether euthanasia should be available as an option. Just like no two people are alike, no two people will think alike or agree what is best for anyone, which is why it is imperative to look at all of the circumstances for which decisions should and can be made. To support euthanasia one of the first things to look at would be the quality of life that a person is living. With the initial diagnosis of illnesses, it can very easily and quickly take away a person’s dignity, leaving them to feel helpless, depressed and even embarrassed, further questioning themselves and their need to live. If euthanasia were an option then it would allow that person to take control of their life in deciding to die if they desired. Once an illness begins to take over and consume more of the patient’s life, eventually the pain and suffering gets worse. Not only are the patients suffering physically and mentally, but the family members and close friends are affected as well. Permitting euthanasia would absolutely stop suffering and can offer a peaceful and painless way to die for sick patients. Nowadays medical care is very expensive, some insurance do not cover all of the needs and services that a patient requires, leaving the patients helpless once again, depending on the government for help. Not knowing if the patient’s health will get any better or if it is a known fact that within time the situation will only get worse financially, medically and physically. There should be no reason why or if a person wishes to use some type of euthanasia method they should not be allowed. Finally, to justify why euthanasia should be an option, there are many cases where people have been hurt by accidents. Others had some medical condition that damaged them in some way. They were not able to make their own decisions or left them in a vegetative state. In these cases it is very hard for the family members or friends to see their loved one lying on a bed, motionless, not knowing if they are suffering inside or knowing that it is only a matter of time, before they die, that’s when non-voluntary euthanasia is the best way to end the suffering for everyone involved and can be done in a peaceful and significant way.
Euthanasia will always be viewed in several different ways. Even if was made legal there would be a continued disputed and discussion. Many people see euthanasia as a form of murder. Ultimately a person’s life is taken away which goes along with religious reasons. The Ten Commandments states “thou shall not kill.” God created life and he is the only person that has the right to end it. It is also believed that it is wrong to choose to die since there are other options and medications that can be made available to help ease the pain whether it is physically or mentally. Using euthanasia to take care of the pain and suffering can represent a failure of the medical staff involved in the eyes of some individuals. This can also result in the medical staff abusing their power if they choose with the wrong intentions. Another issue that comes up is a patient’s mental state, the reason being is because no one can say whether a patient is actually conscious of his or her surroundings, not knowing if they are suffering. Advances in health care and mental health treatments show that there should be no reason why people should be suffering. If given the right care under the proper environment, patients can still have a dignified natural death. There are often stories of misdiagnosis, when given the horrible news about health many go into depression and causes people to think without reason. People tend to jump to conclusion without getting a second opinion and start making thoughtless decisions. There have been many cases where patients are given a certain amount of time to live and they surpass that time. Allowing euthanasia would make for wrong decisions, to be made fairly easy under these certain circumstances. Ultimately if permitted, euthanasia can lead to wrong impressions and change people’s attitudes towards death. This would allow people to view suicide from a different perspective, also prompting people to think that suicide is a moral thing. People would start to use it as a way to get out of something so little that could have been resolved with the proper actions. This can cause society to change as whole by influencing, weak-minded people to feel that it is ok to die for a non life-threating situation. There are many reasons that euthanasia can be seen as positive and negative. Ultimately depending on the background and severity of the situation is when euthanasia should be offered as an option. As mentioned in some of the examples, some of the people wanted to die and were happy to know that they were afforded that opportunity to do so. In the Terri Schiavo case, her parents were not happy with the decision. (At Liberty to die, pg. 51-66) Ultimately, I don’t feel the government should prevent someone from making that decision. There should be some measures placed to allow euthanasia, depending on the case.

Works Cited
Atwood-Gailey, Elizabeth. Write to Death: News Framing of the Right to Die Conflict, from Quinlan's Coma to Kevorkian's Conviction. Westport, CT: Praeger, 2003. Print.
Ball, Howard. At Liberty to Die: The Battle for Death with Dignity in America. New York: New York UP, 2012. Print.
McDougall, Jennifer Fecio. Euthanasia : A Reference Handbook. Santa Barbara, Calif: ABC-CLIO, 2008. eBook Collection (EBSCOhost). Web. 22 June 2015.
Pappas, Demetra M. The Euthanasia/assisted-suicide Debate. Santa Barbara, CA: Greenwood, 2012. Print.
Somerville, Margaret A. Death Talk: The Case against Euthanasia and Physician-assisted Suicide. Montreal: McGill-Queen's UP, 2001. Print.