Ruben Salcedo
Professor Palmer
English 112
10/5/15
Legalization of Euthanasia
Euthanasia is a topic that has been debated by many over the years. Although Euthanasia is presently illegal in the United States, physician assisted death, or PAD is legal in the states of
Washington, Oregon, Vermont and Bernalillo County, New Mexico. To understand Euthanasia, one must understand the way it differs from PAD. The key distinction between the two is that euthanasia requires either a physician or third party to administer the drugs, while in physician assisted death, the drug is administered directly by the individual. The debate over euthanasia dates back to the Greeks and Romans, but it reached the United States in 1870 when Samuel
Williams proposed using morphine and anesthetics to intentionally end an individual's life.
Debates continued for another 35 years when Ohio attempted to pass a bill which would legalize euthanasia in 1906. While the bill was never passed, it was the first of its kind, and laid the foundation for bills to come (Humphrys).
There are many arguments as to why Euthanasia should remain illegal in the United
States. Many individuals argue that it fits the definition of murder, and “For present purposes, murder can be defined as the intentional unjustified, unexcused and legally unmitigated killing of

another human being. Active euthanasia fits this definition on the basis that it is the, or a cause of, death” (Lanham 2).
Although there is some merit to the argument that euthanasia fits the technical definition of murder, there is an even more important factor to consider regarding the morality of compassion versus the technical definition of murder. Euthanasia is used when the quality of life is significantly reduced. When asked about the subject, author and physician Toula Drimonas asked important questions that negate the idea that euthanasia constitutes as immoral murder.
“Why should making choices about our last days be anybody else's business, most certainly in terminal and other untenable situations? Isn't preventing a person's choice to lessen their suffering simply inhumane and the complete opposite of compassion” (Drimonis)? Here, he addresses the concept that a person should still be able to make a decision on their own about whether or not they want to live, regardless of their physical capacity. He emphasizes that there is no compassion in making someone continue living when they are in agonizing pain. Dr.
Drimonas also spoke of the case of Paul Lamb who, “after being completely paralyzed, petitioned for the option to be euthanized to escape a life which he referred to as being “fed and watered” (White).
To withhold someone from ending a life they view as strictly suffering, is cruel and immoral; and goes against the wishes of that human being.
There are several options that some view as alternatives to euthanasia. Many people believe that Palliative care is a more effective method. Palliative care is the spiritual, physical and emotional care for a person dying from a terminal disease with no known cure. This method focuses on improving quality of life through support and compassion for the family and friends of the patient. It is expected that this kind of care will prevent an individual from turning to

euthanasia. The primary goal of palliative care is engaging successfully with the patient as a person, rather than a product or number the way many hospitals do. Palliative care shouldn’t be used as an argument against euthanasia, but rather as a step to prevent euthanasia. While
Palliative care should certainly be used as the first line of defense against an individual wanting to end his life, if palliative care is ineffective or the person is simply in too much pain to overcome, then they should have the right to make the decision to end their excruciating pain through euthanasia.
The intention for palliative care is to allow the family to spend maixmum quality time with their closest family members and friends, with the least amount of stress as possible. The crucial and overall goal is to arrange the last moments into something special so that the family can enjoy those final, precious moments. However, in many cases, eventually the individual;s pain increases to the point that it even hurts the family members to see their loved one endure such significant suffering. When a person reaches this point, they should be able to decide if they want to continue their life.
The most common and well known argument against euthanasia take the “slippery­slope approach, and insinuates that although something initially seeming harmless, overtime it will slide down a darker path. The argument is that once we allow for euthanasia to be legalized, health care services, like health insurance and doctors will begin ending the lives of patients without their consent in order to save money.
Many also believe that the increased access to euthanasia will increase pressure to do so for those who feel like they are a burden to their family, causing them to make a biased decision.
This would only be a valid argument if there were not regulations and laws. Netherland

demonstrates a great example of where euthanasia works effectively because of the regulations which accompany it. Due to strict regulations, about “... two­thirds of patients who apply to be euthanized are refused” (Morris), and unless the euthanization is conducted by a certified doctor, the individual involved will be charged with murder. Hospitals would certainly not attempt to end someone's life unjustly when the consequences are so detrimental. Claims that assert this are typically based on radical ideas as opposed to factual inquiries and research.
Majority of people would agree that in civilized society, no one enjoys seeing an individual in horrible pain because of a deadly disease. It is because of this innate human trait that many have lobbied for an alternative, to living out their last moments in excruciating pain.
The debate essentially depends on the method. For many people, they feel that the struggle of death somehow decreases their dignity, and they would rather pass away while they still have some control of their body.
Euthanasia creates a complex argument, because often it is seem as an “either, or” scenario. However, there can be compromises that allow for both parties to agree upon certain terms which shift the argument from legality to creating a humane solution. Despite the way many view the issue, euthanasia should not be seen as a religious, political or moral argument. It should come down to the fundamental idea that one’s life is their own. Many arguments used against euthanasia have fair points, but if ideas are taken from both sides a compromise can be found. Legalization, with the presence of the proper legal regulation allows people to control their own life and end their suffering. However, this doesn;t mean that every individual who is victim of a reduction of quality of life is required to be euthanized. Regulation protects those

who choose to opt out of the process, but legalization protects the rights of those who would choose to end their suffering.
Euthanasia can mean different things to different people, however to proponents of legalization, they do not see it as the end of someone's life, but rather as a “physician­assisted suicide contending that terminally ill people should have the right to end their suffering with a dignified, and compassionate death” (Should Euthanasia be Legal?). With this in mind, one must also remember that America operates as a democratic society where citizens are granted the right to make decisions over their own bodies. Any individual who is very sick should have the option to end their suffering on their own will, as it is their personal choice and society should not be able to withhold that from them simply because they need medical assistance to complete their wishes. In its most positive sense, Euthanasia ends the suffering of terminally ill people. Rather than live out their final days in pain, or even confusion. The individual has the choice to end their life in a way they see as more dignified. The end of pain continues with the family members as the grief they feel may be reduced, as the suffering can be shortened. Relevant illnesses can include, diseases like Dementia, “Anyone who has watched a loved family member sink into the abyss of confusion... as the person in question tries to juxtapose moments of clarity with the awfulness of knowing one's grip on reality ­­ and with it one's dignity and sense of self ­­ is slipping”(Nitschke). It is an all too scary notion to think of a family member slowly losing who they are. To reduce this suffering, before that individual is unable to make decision on their own euthanasia is a very possible alternative.

As previously mentioned, in order for euthanasia to be safe, compromise is needed in the legislation. Euthanasia should only be used for the most serious cases such as those that are dying of a fatal illness, or someone whose mind is deteriorating at a rapid rate. It must be the individual's decision on whether to take this form of action. Palliative care can act as a
“deterrent” from euthanasia in hopes that a patient can find increased comfort through this care, but that euthanasia is still an option if that is the treatment is unsuccessful or inadequate. This distinction will be made by the patient. An example of palliative care deterring euthanasia is, a
Chilean girl suffering from cystic fibrosis who after an outpour of support, stated “there are people who have led me to change my way of thinking" (Luna 1).
Palliative care can be an effective way of changing someone’s mind but if even after that, and they still choose euthanasia then there should be legal avenues for a patient to act on that decision. In conclusion, if euthanasia is properly controlled and regulated it would prove to be beneficial to many people and would secure a basic human right to determine their status of life and death. With the proper regulations in place, it would be very difficult for the practice to turn take on the “slippery slope” path. Worst case scenario is that indeed it could become method for patients to be taken advantage of which could be corrected through increased regulation.
Euthanasia should only be used in the most dire of circumstances for people in such excruciating pain that going on with life is even worse than death itself. Although this is largely determined by the patient themselves, regulation would be applicable in this area as well. No one wants to see an individual in such pain that they would rather die. However, in the tragic case that this fate occurs, and that patient chooses to end their life, then there is a human obligation to be compassionate enough to allow their suffering to end. Giving a patient

the option of Euthanasia allows them to embrace death on their own terms, rather than at the hands of a disease or illness. Legalization puts the power the disease takes, back in the hands of the patient, giving them one last chance to live their life; and that is the best justification there is.

Work Cited
"Anti­Euthanasia Arguments."
BBC News
. BBC, n.d. Web. 08 Sep. 2015
Drimonis, Toula. "Assisted Death Isn't Murder, It's Compassion."
The Huffington Post
. N.p., 23
May 2014. Web. 05 Oct. 2015
"Euthanasia ­ Should Euthanasia be Legal?"
ProConorg Headlines
. PROCON, 2 Apr. 2015.
Web. 28 Sep. 2015.
Humphrys, Derek. "Chronology of Assisted Dying." Chronology of Assisted Dying. N.p., n.d.
Web. 05 Oct. 2015.
Karaim, Reed. "Assisted Suicide:Should doctors be allowed to help terminally ill patients die?."
CQpress
. CQRESEARCHER, 17 May 2013. Web. 28 Sep 2015
Lanham, David.
Euthanasia, Pain Killing, Murder and Manslaughter (n.d.): n. pag.
AIC. AIC.
Web. 5 Oct. 2015.
Luna, Patricia. "Chilean Girl with Illness Changes Mind about Euthanasia."
Yahoo! News
.
Yahoo!, 22 Mar. 2015. Web. 28 Sep. 2015.
Nitschke, Phillip. "Euthanasia: Hope You Never Need It, but Be Glad the Option Is There."
CNN
. Cable News Network, 27 Nov. 2013. Web. 28 Sep. 2015.
"Rsrevision.com/gcse."
Euthanasia
. Ed. Paul Emecz. RS revision, n.d. Web. 28 Sep. 2015.
White, Hilary. "Paralyzed UK Man Petitioning for Legalized Euthanasia by Lethal Injection."
LifeSiteNews
. LIFESITE, 17 May 2013. Web. 05 Oct. 2015.
.

Rough Draft Ruben Salcedo
Proffesor Palmer
English 112
10/5/15
Euthanasia Should be Legal
Euthanasia is illegal in the United States, PAD or Physician aid in dying however is legal in the states of Washington, Oregon, Vermont and Bernalillo County, New Mexico. To understand Euthanasia, you need to know about PAD as well. The key difference between the two is that euthanasia requires either a physician or third party to administer the drugs, while
Physician aid in dying is administered by the individual themselves. The argument for euthanasia has been going on since the Greek and Roman times, and beginning in 1870 in the United States,
Samuel Williams proposed using morphine and anesthetics to intentionally end an individual's life. Debates continued for 35 more years when Ohio attempted to legalize euthanasia in 1906.
While the bill was never passed it was the first of its kind, and laid a foundation for bills to come.
There are many reasons as to why Euthanasia in the United States is illegal. Many individuals believe it to be murder, and “For present purposes, murder can be defined as the intentional unjustified, unexcused and legally unmitigated killing of another human being.

Active euthanasia fits this definition on the basis that it is the, or a cause of, death” (Lanham 2).
Beyond it fitting this definition, there is nothing that they can argue. Euthanasia is not murder it is compassion. Author and Physican Toula Drimonas asked these two question that completely go against the arguement that euthanasia is murder. I dont know whow to make this flow better“Why should making choices about our last days be anybody else's business, most certainly in terminal and other untenable situations? Isn't preventing a person's choice to lessen their suffering simply inhumane and the complete opposite of compassion? How is there compassion in making someone continue living when they are in agonizing pain, or in the case of Paul Lamb living his life completely paralyzed. Paul Lamb petition for Euthanasia as he said his life “ now consists of being “fed and watered,” and wants to die.” To withhold someone from ending their life when they themselves want their life to end is cruel.
Many people believe that Palliative care is a more effective method, than euthanasia.
Palliative care is the spiritual, phsyical and emotional care for a person dying when a cure is not possible. This involves support and compassion for the family and friends of the patient. It is expected that this kind of care will prevent an individual from turning to euthanasia. The primary goal of palliative care is engaging successfully with the patient as a person, rather than a product or number like how many hospitals do. Palliative care shouldn’t be used as an arguement against euthanasia but rather as the first step before euthanasia. Palliative care should be used as the first line of defense against an individual wanting to end his life, however if palliative care is ineffective or the person is just in too much pain then they should be allowed to end their life rather than be in excruciating pain.

The intention for palliative care is to allow the family to spend as quality time with their closest family members and friends, with the least amount of stress as possible. The crucial and overall goal is to arrange the last moments into something special so that the family can enjoy those final moments because they are precious. Eventually however the individual is in too much pain to where it even hurts the family members, seeing their loved one like that.
The most common and well known argument against euthanasia is the like any slippery slope argument it emphasizes on something initially seeming harmless, but then overtime it turning into something more serious. The argument is that once we allow for euthanasia to be legalized, that Health care services, like health insurance and doctors will begin ending the lives of patients without their consent to save money. Additional believed consequences is that individuals who are under constant supervision and care, will feel pressured to end their life so they are not burdening their family. This would only be a valid argument if there were not regulations and laws. Netherland is a perfect example where euthanasia is effective because of the regulations they put in place with it. Only “around two­thirds of patients who apply to be euthanized are refused” (Morris) and unless the euthanazing is done by a certified doctor, the individual involved will be charged with murder. Hospitals would certainly not attempt to end someone's life when the consequences are so dire. If an individual would think that a hospital would do such a thing then they are not looking at the medical field in a very positive manner.
Due to the legality of the whole issue and the morality of humans, it's hard to believe any medical professional would do such a thing.
No one wants an individual in horrible pain because of a deadly disease, and many would be okay with an alternative, then to live their last moments in excruciating pain, it just depends

on the method. Many people would rather keep their dignity than be seen struggling in their final moments. Euthanasia creates a complex argument, because often it is seem as an either or. One does not have to pick against, euthanasia, being either illegal or legal. There can be compromises that allow for both parties to agree upon certain terms. Euthanasia should not even be seen as a religious, political or moral argument. It should come down to the fundamental idea that one’s life is their own. Many arguments used against Euthanasia have fair points, but if ideas are taken from both sides a compromise should be found.. It is equally understandable as to why it should be legal, it ends people suffering, it is the individual’s choice and that person gets to go out on their own terms with dignity however they seem fit. .
Euthanasia can mean different things to different people, however to proponents of legalization, they do not see it as the end of someone's life, but rather as a “physician­assisted suicide contending that terminally ill people should have the right to end their suffering with a dignified, and compassionate death”(Should Euthanasia be Legal?). This is where it comes down to the fact that, we live in a democratic society where it should be the person's decisions, and that decision should be respected. Everyone has the right to how they treat their own body. Every individual who is very sick is in their own rights to have the option of euthanasia, as it is their personal choice and society should not be able to withhold that from them. In its most positive sense, Euthanasia ends the suffering of terminally ill people. Rather than live out their final days in pain, or even confusion. The individual has the choice to end their life in dignity. The end of pain continues with the family members as the grief they feel, can be shortened. Illnesses can include, diseases like Dementia, “Anyone who has watched a loved family member sink into the abyss of confusion... as the person in question tries to juxtapose

moments of clarity with the awfulness of knowing one's grip on reality ­­ and with it one's dignity and sense of self ­­ is slipping”(Nitschke). It is an all to scary notion to think of a family member slowly losing who they are. Before that individual can not make decision on their own euthanasia is a very possible idea.
Compromise is needed in the argument of euthanasia. Euthanasia should only be used for the most serious cases, of those that are dying of a fatal illness, or of someone whose mind is deteriorating at a rapid rate. It should be the individual's decision on whether to take this form of action. Palliative care can act as a “deterrent” from Euthanasia as if a patient can find increased comfort through this care then, that is the patient's decision. An example of palliative care deterring euthanasia is, a Chilean girl suffering from cystic fibrosis who after an outpour of support, stated “there are people who have led me to change my way of thinking" (Luna 1).
Palliative care can be an effective way of changing someone’s mind but if even after that, and they still choose euthanasia then that should be the individual’s choice. If Euthanasia is properly controlled and regulated it would be benefical to so many people. With these regulations in place it would be very difficult for the slippery slope scenario to become reality.
Worst case scenario is that indeed it could become a slippery slope. Euthanasia should only be used in the most dire of circumstances for people in such excruiating pain that going on with life is even worse than death itself. No one wants to see an individual in such pain that they would rather die. If that patient chooses to end their life then we as humans should have the compassion to allow that to happen. Giving a patient the option of Euthanasia allows them to have the option of dying on their own terms, rather than because of a disease or illness. Why would we withhold that from someone?