The Right to Die
Through the ages, the only facet of life that has maintained its consistency is the fact that everyone and everything dies. Death is an inevitable force that can only be avoided for short amounts of time, as one cannot live forever. In modern times, medicine's main goal and interest is to prolong the lives of those who want to live. What, then, is the fate of those who are stricken with terminal illnesses? What of those who writhe in pain every day and are incapable of performing the most menial tasks for themselves? Along with abortion and gay marriage, euthanasia is at the forefront of the political arena as a hot-button debate topic. The basic issue surrounding the euthanasia debate is whether or not a physician should, or be allowed to, provide assistance in death in the case of a terminal condition to a patient incapable of carrying out the deed him or herself. A terminally ill patient should have the right to choose when and how he or she dies and the topic of euthanasia should be free from social stigma and religious taboos.
To some the name Jack Kevorkian conjures up images of a murderous doctor preying on innocent and sickly patients. Known to critics and dissidents as “Dr. Death”, it would seem as if he is guilty of grave offenses against his patients. Contrarily, at the patients' request, Dr. Kevorkian provided over one hundred thirty men and women with painless endings to their lives (Memmott). He is seen as a pioneer, leader, and symbol of the Right-to-Movement. However, he like many others, received a prison sentence for murder instead of the thank yous he is owed.
When a pet is afflicted with an illness that causes unbearable pain or its quality of life to decrease detrimentally, euthanasia is seen as the most humane procedure that can be conducted. There is no way for an animal to communicate whether or not it wants to die to its owner, but society deems it acceptable for the owner and veterinarian to agree to put it down. For what reason are the cries of an ailing, terminally ill human patient ignored? When suffering has become immeasurable and the terminal patient continues to deteriorate without hope of permanent alleviation, the option should be available for the patient to choose to end his or her life by way of their physician. To that end, if the patient's condition does not allow for the suicide to be carried out alone, it should be completely legal for the doctor or the alternative assister to aid the patient without the fear of facing criminal charges.
Suicide is considered legal, but when the help of another person is enlisted, it becomes a criminal offense (Andre and Velasquez). For example, Harold Donnelly's brother was suffering from skin cancer after years of research on X-rays. Due to his battle Matthew Donnelly had lost his nose, portions of his jaw, his sight, his whole left hand, and two of the fingers on his right hand (Andre and Vasquez). The doctors estimated he only had about twelve months left to live. Donnelly repeatedly exclaimed that he wanted to die; he made it clear to everyone around him that he did not find his life worth living any longer (Andre and Vasquez). One day, his brother walked to the hospital with a gun in his hand and put Matthew Donnelly out of his misery, and then Harold was charged and tried for murder (Andre and Vasquez). As mentioned before, Dr. Kevorkian was tried and convicted under similar circumstances and received ten years to life in prison, although he only served eight. On the other hand, in a landmark Dutch legal case, the first of its kind, their Supreme Court ruled that it is a doctors' duty to relieve suffering (J Bioeth Inq. 2009). The Dutch believe that if euthanizing a patient is determined to be the best way to relieve said suffering, it is right (J Bioeth Inq. 2009). The doctor that was on trial was then acquitted of all charges and allowed to continue his practice (J Bioeth Inq. 2009).
The limiting factor in the legalization of euthanasia that weighs on the debate most heavily is the fact that the issue is surrounded by social taboos and grounded in religious roots. In Europe, societal approval of euthanasia is much higher than the approval rate of those in the United States. Specifically in the Netherlands, as time passed the Dutch people became more informed and released the thought of euthanasia as a bad thing from their minds. Their approval rate jumped from fifty percent to ninety percent in a matter of twenty-two years (J Bioeth Inq. 2009). The legislators thus felt it appropriate allow euthanasia to be legalized in 2001 because the approval rating was so high (J Bioeth Inq. 2009). Similarly, when Oregonians voted in 1994 and 1996 to have euthanasia legalized, it was because the notion received solid, positive approval ratings (Humphry). In the other forty-nine states in the United States where euthanasia is illegal, it is mostly due to the disapproval of religious figure heads and the stigmas attached to discussing death. European societies have lower ratios of people that subscribe to religion and/or religious doctrine, and oppositely the American society still has large amounts of people that follow organized religions (Humphry). Those that are religious feel as if no one has the right to take or choose to take a life, or “play God”. However, this view virtually removes the thought of free will of humans from the picture and presents a warped view of morality. To this effect, it is as if the moral thing to do is watch someone suffer needlessly instead of providing final comfort; people allow their religious beliefs to cloud their ethical and social judgments (Humphry). In more recent studies and opinion polls, fifty percent of Americans would prefer to have the option to die with dignity. Other studies indicate that seventy to eighty percent of Americans are in favor of reform to the law currently outlawing euthanasia (Humphry).
Some may believe that by legalizing euthanasia it will be used as a disposal of the patients that are terminally ill. They hold the notion that assisted suicide legalization will lead to abuse that is the exact opposite of the purpose of offering the option. To disprove such thoughts, there have been many experiments conducted. In the thirty year observations of Dutch physicians and hospitals, there have been very few abuse cases noted (J Bioeth Inq. 2009). In fact, there is no evidence that euthanasia is presented and/or used as an option more frequently based on age, economic status, type of illness, presence of a mental illness, or among minorities (J Bioeth Inq. 2009).
When one is at the end of their rope, hopelessly sick, void of performing the basic functions that make us people on their own, and resigned to his or her bed to suffer the last days in pain there is no happiness. When your doctor tells you that you have ten months, four months, even two months left to live, the zest and the zeal for life is long gone. For too long the focus has been on prolonging life for as long as possible and keeping people away from the brink of death instead of listening to the cries of the tortured souls afflicted with painful terminal illness. Providing the option to be euthanized is not a negative thing. Those that are presented with the option would be those without any hope for a cure. Those people deserve the right to die with their dignity still intact and to exit their lives in the manner that they deem fit. One day you could be the one shackled inside of a body that doesn't function anymore. Will there be anyone to hear your strangled cries for help? Will you receive help in your final living request to transition from the tormented world of the living to a presumably peaceful afterlife without pain and suffering?

Works Cited
Andre, Claire, and Manuel Velasquez. “Assisted Suicide: A Right or a Wrong.” Santa Clara University: The Jesuit University in Silicon Valley. The Markkula Center for Applied Ethics at Santa Clara University, n.d. Web. 2 May 2012.
Humphry, Derek. “The Future of the Right-To-Die Movement.” Assisted Suicide. Euthanasia Research & Guidance Organization, Sept. 2004. Web. 1 May 2012.
J Bioeth Inq. 2009. “Two Decades of Research on Euthanasia from the Netherlands. What Have We Learnt and What Questions Remain?” Journal of Biomedical Inquiry. PubMed Central, 2009. Web. 1 May 2012.
Memmott, Mark. “Dr. Jack Kevorkian Dies.” NPR. N.p., n.d. Web. 15 May 2012.