Death with Dignity
If we assume that every human being born into this world has a "right to life," then it logically follows that every human being has a right to end their life (or a "right to die"). Because death is a part of life, a person's right to life logically assumes a right to not have that life. Thus, any law upholding a person's right to life has inherent within that same law a person's right to die, otherwise it would not be a right to life in the true sense of the term. But there is a legal battle going on in America right now over whether or not a person has a right to die. Does the government have the right to prolong your life by artificial means whether you desire it or not? With the passing of this law nationwide, you, as the voter will simply be saying, “It is YOUR choice” (Patashnik, 2004)
The issue of “Having a Personal Right to Die,” has been long simmered beneath the surface in legal and political circles: under what circumstances do terminally injured and ill Americans have the right to choose to die? The Supreme Court made a definitive statement in the landmark 1990 case Cruzan v. Director, Missouri Dept. of Health that severely injured patients have a constitutional right to refuse medical treatment and die. But the court also ruled that states can require "clear and convincing" evidence of a patient's intent to forgo medical treatment, a rather high evidentiary standard to meet.
History
The actual word for “having a right to die” is Euthanasia. According to Dictionary.com, euthanasia is defined as the practice of intentionally ending a life in order to relieve pain and suffering. The concept of Euthanasia goes as far back as 1870, when Samuel Williams, a schoolteacher, initiated the contemporary euthanasia debate through a speech given at the Birmingham Speculative Club, which was subsequently published in a one-off publication entitled Essays of the Birmingham Speculative Club, the collected works of a number of members of an amateur philosophical society. Williams' proposal was to use chloroform to deliberately hasten the death of terminally ill patients:
“That in all cases of hopeless and painful illness, it should be the recognized duty of the medical attendant, whenever so desired by the patient, to administer choloroform or such other anaesthetic as may by-and-bye supersede chloroform – so as to destroy consciousness at once, and put the sufferer to a quick and painless death; all needful precautions being adopted to prevent any possible abuse of such duty; and means being taken to establish, beyond the possibility of doubt or question, that the remedy was applied at the express wish of the patient.”—Samuel Williams (1872)
America also saw the first attempt to legalise euthanasia, when Henry Hunt introduced legislation into the General Assembly of Ohio in 1906. Hunt did so at the behest of Anna Hall, a wealthy heiress who was a major figure in the euthanasia movement during the early 20th century in the United States. Hall had watched her mother die after an extended battle with liver cancer, and had dedicated herself to ensuring that others would not have to endure the same suffering. Towards this end she engaged in an extensive letter writing campaign, recruited Lurana Sheldon and Maud Ballington Booth, and organised a debate on euthanasia at the annual meeting of the American Humane Association in 1905 – described by Jacob Appel as the first significant public debate on the topic in the 20th century. (Appel, 2004) After 1906 the euthanasia debate reduced in intensity, resurfacing periodically but not returning to the same level of debate until the 1930s in the United Kingdom.[
In the late thirties Euthanasia was again thrown in to the spotlight, with much more forociousness than ever before when in January of 1936, King George V was given a fatal dose of morphine and cocaine in order to hasten his death. At the time he was suffering from cardiorespiratory failure, and the decision to end his life was made by his physician, Lord Dawson. The legislation came through to answer for this incident, in the form of the British Volunteer Euthanasia Legalisation Society (now known as Dignity in Dying), which was formed in 1935. However some say that the formation of the Dignity in Dying Society can be traced back to a 1931 speech by Dr Charles Killick (Kemp, N September 2002)
The momentum of the movement, picked even more speed, after the hugely-publicized Karen Ann Quinlan `right to die' case in New Jersey in 1976 revealed to the public the extent of modern medical technology to extend life indefinitely in a persistent vegetative state. In 1980 Derek Humphry founded the Hemlock Society to campaign for law reform on assisted dying. His beliefs are founded on the belief that life is a personal responsibility and we [society] know some people are so tormented that they cannot bear to live. In such circumstances, understanding is called for. (Humphry, D 1980)

Ethics: Moral & Medical
Euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide are controversial issues in medical ethics and medical law. In the debate, several arguments against the moral acceptability and legal feasibility of active involvement of physicians in bringing about a patient’s death can be found.
In medical ethics and medical law, patient autonomy is a central pivot. Patients have the right to refuse treatment even if this leads to their death. Shouldn’t people also have the right to determine the moment of dying, if they are in a situation which is unbearable, and without prospect of improvement? Another argument focuses on the duty of the physician to alleviate pain and suffering. If there is no other option, the doctor, in fulfilling this duty, should be allowed to actively end the patient’s life. This argument is not based on autonomy, but on beneficence.
The debate concerning euthanasia involves fundamentally different moral principles. This makes the debate interesting, if not central to medical ethics and medical law. Yet, the principles are normally presented in an abstract way. Discussants stick to very general ideas, which lack reference to specific social and historical conditions, and are not related to concrete experiences. To invoke the Ten Commandments, or plea for a right to die, implies the use of universal standards, which tend to be general and empty.
Moral
Euthanasia debates, stems from the base of ethics and how should euthanasia be utilized. There are laws against suicide so why euthanasia a form of suicide should be allowed. As there are always two side to a debate, there are those whom support the cause. As per as the society as well as the culture are involved suicide is considered to be a grave crime. Society members' deal with as well as present a response to the issues of death, lifestyles and others gradually are responsible of giving the society a proper shape and a structure. Our society thus forms the immense responsibility of dealing with all the people living with it. Particularly, society is also feels responsible for clearly defining norms, and also properly drawing the lines of ethics. In other words, our society needs to be put into a pretty little box of “rules and regulations” of norms. Obviously, when it comes to a voluntary bout of death then the controversies really start taking place. Human beings are now forced to sort of re-think about the issue of death since now one can die anytime he or she feels like. The ethics of dying are really important and one needs to deeply analyze the causes as to why this debate exists. Life expectancy has been increased thanks to the excellent medical progression.
Medical
The Hippocratic Oath is often invoked against the morality of physician involvement in deaths of patients. That oath declares: “I will neither give a deadly drug to anybody if asked for it, nor will I make a suggestion to this effect.” That being explained, you can ‘see’, so to speak, the central question that thef the medical profession is currently facing. And that is, the relationship of assisted suicide to the fundamental goals and values of the profession itself. There are some commentators that have supported assisted suicide, but still argued that it falls outside the domain of moral medical practice: they argue there ought to be others (non-physicians) who assist in death of this kind. Other commentators note that there is a plurality of views within the medical profession, and the goals of the profession ought to respect that diversity. There are some in the profession that tolerates differences of opinions. Why should they not, experience teaches them to also tolerate diversity in respect of physician-assisted suicide? The bottom line is, physicians are taught to “do no harm”, what is left open for discussion is that physicians’ perspective on what “exactly” is going to harm the person more, the pain or the release from the pain.

Euthanasia and Assisted Suicide
Ultimately, euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide is a question of choice, empowering people to have control over their own bodies. Neither the government nor the physician can decide what is best for anyone. America prides itself on freedom. The freedom to make decisions. Whichever way Americans choose to act or react to euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide is a moral and ethical decision. The future still remains to be seen.
Euthanasia
Euthanasia is generally classified as either "active" or "passive", and as either "voluntary" or "involuntary". Similar to euthanasia is "assisted suicide".
Assisted Suicide
An assisted suicide is a situation in which a person helps another party to end his life. This type of mercy killing is often used to put an end to a painful condition from which the patient has little-to-no hope of recovering. It may also be used when patients are unable to function normally or live without extreme measures. In such cases, the idea behind assisted suicide may be to allow the patient to die with dignity.
Active Euthanasia
According to some expects, "Active euthanasia" is taking specific steps to cause the patient's death, such as injecting the patient with poison. In practice, this is usually an overdose of pain-killers or sleeping pills. Some also believe that active euthanasia is a form of euthanasia in which a doctor takes an active role in ensuring that a patient dies. There are a number of different ways in which this can be done, though the most common is typically an increase and overdose of medication that is used to reduce pain. By using this type of method, active euthanasia usually involves no pain for a person, and simply shuts the person’s physiological system down as he or she sleeps.
Active euthanasia is often very controversial due to the fact that a doctor or other medical professional must actively make an effort to end the life of a patient. This is typically done for a patient who repeatedly requests the end of his or her life. Most doctors who perform active euthanasia will only perform it on someone who is suffering from an illness that has greatly reduced his or her quality of life and which has no foreseeable treatment.

Passive Euthanasia
Passive euthanasia is the term applied to a doctor’s actions in agreeing to withhold medical treatment from a terminally ill patient. Many times this agreement is made between the patient and the doctor while the patient is still conscious and able to make such a decision. Some individuals even have direct instructions to this effect placed in written form and witnessed by a third-party prior to becoming ill. In other cases, this decision is made by a family member.
Ways of implementing passive euthanasia may include not feeding a patient or discontinuing the administration of fluids necessary to keep the patient hydrated. By not administering such basic life-sustaining care a terminally ill patient eventually expires. In the absence of an agreement to withhold these elements of care, a patient may linger in a painful or vegetative state for several months, years or even decades. Those in favor of using passive euthanasia when deemed necessary view it as a way to end a person’s suffering when there is nothing else, medically, which can be done to save her or his life.
Voluntary Euthanasia
Voluntary euthanasia is the termination of a person's life with the explicit consent of that person, typically for reasons relating to health or quality of life. It is usually performed in consultation with a physician or medical professional using a variety of drugs that purportedly end life painlessly. Euthanasia, even when voluntary, is not legal in all societies, and so some people choose to travel to areas in which they can choose to die. For many people, voluntary euthanasia is a question of personal rights, while for others it is a question of absolute morality, which makes it very difficult for consensus to be reached on this issue.
A person might choose euthanasia because death is inevitable, pain makes life too difficult, or he or she has no will to live. There are a variety of other possible reasons that a person might be euthanized voluntarily, but many of these are not acceptable in any location under current medical and legal guidelines. For instance, some people believe that humanity is a blight on the earth, and these people might choose voluntary euthanasia as a moral exit from the world. Simply choosing to die is not enough for a death to be considered voluntary euthanasia. Euthanasia is currently a term reserved only for death related to medical, not philosophical, concerns.
Involuntary Euthanasia
Involuntary euthanasia is the ending of a person's life without his or her consent, typically due to the perceived lack of worth of that life. The intended semantic difference between involuntary euthanasia and murder is that murder is an aggressive act intended to punish, whereas euthanasia is usually used for situations in which life is ended for philosophical or purportedly rational reasons. In many people's opinions, there is no difference between these two terms, nor is there always a legal difference. Generally, when a person refers to involuntary euthanasia it is in a philosophical or conceptual sense, because actually practicing euthanasia without a patient's consent is almost always considered murder in today's legal systems.

When euthanasia is performed without a person's consent, this is considered involuntary euthanasia. The person may violently resist euthanasia if it is being performed actively, meaning that actions are taken to actively kill the person. In most cases, involuntary euthanasia is performed by withdrawing care rather than actively killing a person. This may be done without the patient's knowledge, often by a doctor, or without the patient's consent when he or she is mentally incapacitated.

Documentation
Although euthanasia is illegal in most of the United States, there are a few ways that a person can plan ahead. There are several legal documents, that are particularly focused to help the person prepare for the future. Living Wills, Do Not Resuscitate Orders, Five Wishes Document, and Medical Power of Attorney are a few of the mostl known documents.
Living Will
"A living will is your written expression of how you want to be treated in certain medical conditions. Depending on state law, this document may permit you to express whether or not you wish to be given life-sustaining treatments in the event you are terminally ill or injured, to decide in advance whether you wish to be provided food and water via intravenous devices ('tube feeding'), and to give other medical directions that impact the end of life. 'Life-sustaining treatment' means the use of available medical machinery and techniques, such as heart-lung machines, ventilators, and other medical equipment and techniques that will sustain and possibly extend your life, but which will not by themselves cure your condition. In addition to terminal illness or injury situations, most states permit you to express your preferences as to treatment using life-sustaining equipment and/or tube feeding for medical conditions that leave you permanently unconscious and without detectable brain activity. (ProCon.org)
A living will applies in situations where the decision to use such treatments may prolong your life for a limited period of time and not obtaining such treatment would result in your death. It does not mean that medical professionals would deny you pain medications and other treatments that would relieve pain or otherwise make you more comfortable. Living wills do not determine your medical treatment in situations that do not affect your continued life, such as routine medical treatment and non life-threatening medical conditions. In all states the determination as to whether or not you are in such a medical condition is determined by medical professionals, usually your attending physician and at least one other medical doctor who has examined you and/or reviewed your medical situation. Most states permit you to include other medical directions that you wish your physicians to be aware of regarding the types of treatment you do or do not wish to receive." (ProCon.org)

Do Not Resuscitate Order
In medicine, a "do not resuscitate" or "DNR", sometimes called a "No Code", is a legal order written either in the hospital or on a legal form to respect the wishes of a patient to not undergo CPR or advanced cardiac life support (ACLS) if their heart were to stop or they were to stop breathing. The term "code" is commonly used by medical professionals as a slang term for "calling in a Code Blue" to alert a hospital's resuscitation team. The DNR request is usually made by the patient or health care power of attorney and allows the medical teams taking care of them to respect their wishes. In the health care community "allow natural death" or "AND" is a term that is quickly gaining favor as it focuses on what is being done, not what is being avoided. Some criticize the term "do not resuscitate" because it sounds as if something important is being withheld, while research shows that only about 5% of patients who require ACLS outside the hospital and only 15% of patients who require ACLS while in the hospital survive.[1][2] Patients who are elderly, are living in nursing homes, have multiple medical problems, or who have advanced cancer are much less likely to survive. A DNR does not affect any treatment other than that which would require intubation or CPR. Patients who are DNR can continue to get chemotherapy, antibiotics, dialysis, or any other appropriate treatments.

Aging With Dignity: Five Wishes
Five Wishes was originally introduced in 1996 as a Florida-only document, combining a living will and health care power of attorney in addition to addressing matters of comfort care and spirituality. With help from the American Bar Association's Commission on Law and Aging and leading medical experts, a national version of Five Wishes was introduced in 1998. It was originally distributed with support from a grant by the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation. With assistance from the United Health Foundation, Five Wishes is now available in 26 languages and in Braille. More than 18 million documents have been distributed by a network of over 35,000 partner organizations worldwide. An online version called Five Wishes Online was introduced in April 2011 allowing users to complete the document using an online interface or print out a blank version to complete by hand.
According to analysis by the American Bar Association's Commission on Law and Aging, Five Wishes currently meets the legal requirements for an advance directive in the following 42 states and the District of Columbia. In the remaining 8 states, (Alabama, Indiana, Kansas, New Hampshire, Ohio, Oregon, Texas, and Utah) a statutory form is required, and one must attach the state document if one wishes to use the Five Wishes document as a guide.
Medical Power of Atterney
A medical power of attorney is a document that lets you appoint someone you trust to make decisions about your medical care if you cannot make them yourself. This type of advance directive can also be called a 'healthcare proxy,' 'appointment of a healthcare agent,' or 'durable power of attorney for healthcare.' The person you appoint may be called your healthcare agent, surrogate, attorney-in-fact, or healthcare proxy. The person you appoint through a medical power of attorney usually is authorized to deal with all medical situations, not only end-of-life decisions when you cannot speak for yourself. Thus, he or she can speak for you if you become termporarily incapacitated--after an accident, for example--as well as if you become incapacitated because of irreversible disease or injury.
Generally, the law requires your agent to make the same medical decisions that you would have made, if possible. To help your agent do this, it is essential that you discuss your values about the quality of life that is impotant to you and the kinds of decisions you would make in various situations... These discussions will help your agent to form a picture of your views regarding the use of medical treatments

Euthanasia in America
Euthanasia is illegal in all states of the United States. Physician aid-in-dying (PAD), or assisted suicide, is legal in the states of Washington, Oregon, and Montana. The key difference between euthanasia and PAD is who administers the lethal dose of medication. Euthanasia entails the physician or another third party administering the medication, whereas PAD requires the patient to self-administer the medication and to determine whether and when to do this. Attempts to legalize PAD resulted in ballot initiatives and "legislation bills" within the United States of America in the last 20 years. For example, the state of Washington voters saw Ballot Initiative 119 in 1991, the state of California placed Proposition 161 on the ballot in 1992, Oregon voters passed Measure 16 (Death with Dignity Act) in 1994, the state of Michigan included Proposal B in their ballot in 1998, and Washington's Initiative 1000 passed in 2008.
In the United States, religion and race play a crucial role when it comes to general opinion about euthanasia. Even though active euthanasia is illegal in the United States, the patients do have the right to refuse medical treatment. Similarly the patient can request for various measures to ease their pain and suffering, even if these measures hasten their death. Death caused in such circumstances amounts to passive euthanasia which is not considered illegal. Out of the 50 states which make the United States of America, only four states have provisions for euthanasia in their judicial system. These four states include Oregon, Washington, Montana and Texas. Among these states, Oregon was the first state to introduce euthanasia laws with the Death With Dignity (DWD) Act of 1994. According to this act, people who are terminally ill, with no chances of survival whatsoever, can ask the doctor for lethal medication. While these states have legalized mercy killing, states like Alabama, Massachusetts, Michigan, Nevada, South Carolina, West Virginia etc. have criminalized the practice in their common law.
Under the law, a capable adult Oregon resident who has been diagnosed, by a physician, with a terminal illness that will kill the patient within six months may request in writing, from his or her physician, a prescription for a lethal dose of medication for the purpose of ending the patient's life. Exercise of the option under this law is voluntary and the patient must initiate the request. Any physician, pharmacist or healthcare provider who has moral objections may refuse to participate.

Oregon: Death with Dignity Act
The request must be confirmed by two witnesses, at least one of whom is not related to the patient, is not entitled to any portion of the patient's estate, is not the patient's physician, and is not employed by a health care facility caring for the patient. After the request is made, another physician must examine the patient's medical records and confirm the diagnosis. The patient must be determined to be free of a mental condition impairing judgment. If the request is authorized, the patient must wait at least fifteen days and make a second oral request before the prescription may be written. The patient has a right to rescind the request at any time. Should either physician have concerns about the patient's ability to make an informed decision, or feel the patient's request may be motivated by depression or coercion, the patient must be referred for a psychological evaluation. The law protects doctors from liability for providing a lethal prescription for a terminally ill, competent adult in compliance with the statute's restrictions. Participation by physicians, pharmacists, and health care providers is voluntary. The law also specifies a patient's decision to end his or her life shall not "have an effect upon a life, health, or accident insurance or annuity policy." Washington

References Do we have the right to die? (n.d.). Do We Have the Right to Die? Retrieved from http://www.near-death.com/experiences/suicide11.html Appel, Jacob (2004). "A Duty to Kill? A Duty to Die? Rethinking the Euthanasia Controversy of 1906". Bulletin of the History of Medicine 78 (3): 618. Nick Kemp (7 September 2002). Merciful Release. Manchester University Press. ISBN 978-0-7190-6124-0. 0719061245 Derek Humphry - Biography, Information and Resources - derekhumphry.com. (n.d.). Retrieved from http://www.derekhumphry.com/index.html Euthanasia Ethics. (n.d.). Euthanasia Ethics. Retrieved from http://www.euthanasiaethics.com/ Terminology. (n.d.). Medical Ethics. Retrieved from http://www.uic.edu/depts/mcam/ethics/suicide.htm Barnett, T., & Wiley, M. (n.d.). What Is Involuntary Euthanasia? WiseGeek. Retrieved from http://www.wisegeek.com/what-is-involuntary-euthanasia.htm Madison, N., & Walker, J. (n.d.). What Is an Assisted Suicide? WiseGeek. Retrieved from http://www.wisegeek.com/what-is-an-assisted-suicide.htm What is a living will? - Euthanasia - ProCon.org. (n.d.). What Is a Living Will? - Euthanasia - ProCon.org. Retrieved from http://euthanasia.procon.org/view.answers.php?questionID=000177 Aging With Dignity Five Wishes Online. (n.d.). Aging With Dignity Five Wishes Online. Retrieved from https://fivewishesonline.agingwithdignity.org/ What is a health care power of attorney? - Euthanasia - ProCon.org. (n.d.). What Is a Health Care Power of Attorney? - Euthanasia - ProCon.org. Retrieved from http://euthanasia.procon.org/view.answers.php?questionID=000179 Death with Dignity in Oregon, Washington & (soon to be) Montana. (n.d.). Euthanasia and the Law in the United States of America. Retrieved from http://www.exitinternational.net/page/USA