Physician Assisted Suicide

Out of the fifty states in the United States, Physician Assisted Suicide (PAS) is only legal in five, while the practice of euthanasia remains illegal in all. Physician Assisted Suicide is when the physician provides the patient with lethal means that can be used by the patient at any time of the patient’s own choosing. On the other hand, the practice of euthanasia requires that the physician is the one who administers the lethal substances to the patient. Despite this technical difference, the two terms are often used interchangeably. Euthanasia and PAS provide relief to both those in mental and those in physical pain. As seen in countries around the world that have legalized euthanasia, with the proper restrictions, providing this procedure

as an option can be very beneficial. The debate on whether to allow euthanasia and PAS has been ongoing for up to twenty years, with doctors and other intellectuals arguing either for or against the practices. Ultimately, however, the benefits of euthanasia and PAS outweigh their drawbacks and thus, both should be legalized in the United States.
One major point in the argument for legalizing euthanasia and physician assisted suicide is that they aid patients who are experiencing unbearable and terminal physical pain.

As medical procedures and techniques have become more advanced, doctors are able to do much more to try and save a patient's life (Warriach). In some cases, however, this process is only delaying the inevitable and causing the patient even more suffering. If euthanasia were legal, patients could willingly choose to end this long process of torment, specifically in terminal cases where both would lead to the same result: death. In a hospital, a patient's life gets dragged on despite the condition by medical tools and devices such as respirators (Warriach). The only way to cease the patient’s anguish is by ending all means of life support. If euthanasia were presented as an option, it would save the patient, along with their family, from immense pain and

suffering.
In addition to providing physical relief, euthanasia and PAS also relieve those experiencing mental pain. Pain and euthanasia are usually associated together with the common belief that those who resort to euthanasia do so for the sole reason of ending their immense physical pain. However, this is not necessarily true, as there are also many patients who request euthanasia due to mental suffering (Emanuel). Common reasons patients might ask for euthanasia due to mental issues include intolerable worry over losing control, becoming a burden, or losing dignity (Emanuel). The legalization of euthanasia or PAS would help patients experiencing various types of psychological pain.
Furthermore, euthanasia and PAS have been legalized in many places around the world with successful outcomes. Often times, death is long, agonizing, and painful. Without at least the options of euthanasia or PAS, a patient must suffer for a prolonged duration of time before they die. A bill that is set to become a law in the UK accurately summarizes euthanasia as allowing mentally sane adults with a terminal illness to end their own lives (Gilbert). This shows that restrictions would be set in place in order to prevent just anyone from opting for these procedures. Examples of such restrictions include that the patient must have an incurable illness and must be of sound mind while making the decision to undergo either euthanasia or PAS. These restrictions would ensure that euthanasia and PAS do not become uncontrollable. Such restrictions have been put in place in certain countries around the world so that forms of assisted suicide and euthanasia are allowed. Euthanasia is an option in end of life cases in places such as Switzerland and Belgium (Gilbert). If these countries successfully allow assisted suicide, then, with similar restrictions put in place, the United States can as well.
Of course, many still oppose the practice of euthanasia with the claim that allowing it leads to a slippery slope.

Many regard PAS as allowing doctors to kill and claim that it is corrupting the practice of medicine (Anderson). They argue that allowing euthanasia or physician assisted suicide is going against everything the practice of medicine stands for and that once a doctor assists one person's suicide, they will eventually be doing the same for any patient, including those with curable conditions (Walsh). Those with an aversion to euthanasia claim that the physicians in countries that allow the practice, such as Switzerland and Belgium, have no boundaries on who should or should not be given the options of PAS or euthanasia. Those against euthanasia conclude their arguments simply by saying that there must be a limit to the phrase “by every means necessary”, implying that euthanasia is taking it too far (Anderson). Thus, the entire argument against euthanasia and PAS is that once they are legalized, there will be no stopping the numerous physician assisted deaths. However, those that argue against euthanasia and PAS make the claim that legalizing euthanasia and PAS will lead to many physician assisted deaths without providing evidence and explanations as to how this chain of reactions will occur. Because they commit the logical fallacy of slippery slope, the argument against euthanasia can easily be debunked by using countries that allow euthanasia, such as Switzerland

and Belgium, as examples. In these countries, restrictions are in place and doctors are not killing off their patients, contrary to the basis of the slippery slope arguments.
The debate on euthanasia and physician assisted suicide has been ongoing for a long time. Those in favor of its legalization argue that, with the proper restrictions, it can be the perfect solution to those in immense psychological or physical pain. Those against the practice argue that there will be no boundaries if it is legalized. The latter argument has been disproved by multiple examples from around the world. Thus, because euthanasia and Physician Assisted Suicide benefit many, the practices should be legalized in more than just ten percent of the United States.