Suppose a person has just been diagnosed with cancer. They have six months to live and their doctor has made it clear that these months will be painful. The patient must resist the pain or move to a place where they can die by choice. This situation is faced by many terminally ill patients around the world. Euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide for terminally ill patients should be legalized, because the life or death decision should be in the hands of the patient, who is the rightful owner of his or her life. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on “Why Violent Video Games Should Not Be Banned”? Get the original essay The Middle East Journal of Cancer offers such a view in an article arguing for euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide. Part of the article focuses on a study conducted in the United States among oncology patients, oncologists and the general public. The article states: “Attitudes of oncology patients and oncologists toward euthanasia were assessed in the United States. Results indicated that approximately two-thirds of oncology patients and the public find euthanasia acceptable for those suffering from persistent pain. » The majority of the American population supports physician-assisted suicide because of the ongoing and unforgiving pain that accompanies cancer. These people see it as a way to escape possible suffering. It is unfair to allow those on the opposing side to make this decision for the benefit of cancer patients who are in favor of it. And if legalized, PAS would remain a matter of choice and could not legally be imposed on other patients. By legalizing this process, it could be a potential option for those who prefer euthanasia over discomfort. On the other hand, someone might argue that doctors who permit assisted suicide are helping their patients commit murder. Such an argument is offered by the British Journal of Medical Practitioners, a peer-reviewed online journal that produces content relating to all aspects of the medical world. It is true that the doctor helps the patient to die. However, it is not reasonable to compare this act to murder, because murder is often committed in an unhealthy or unjust manner. The doctor assists the patient with his consent and known medical practices. This act cannot therefore be considered synonymous with any form of execution. Many opponents of euthanasia believe that terminally ill patients only resort to such a drastic measure because they fear burdening their families or not receiving appropriate health care. Miranda Barbuzzi provides a solution to these problems with this issue. She says: “These fears could be alleviated through mandatory psychological examinations and counseling for both the patient in question and their family by a psychologist specializing in terminal illnesses. These sessions would allow a professional to correctly analyze the psychological state of the patient and any real or imaginary external pressure exerted on him. Such psychological examinations would eliminate any factors other than the illness itself that might affect the patient's decision. Patients will only focus on themselves and wonder if the process will benefit them. Family review and counseling will extend this solution to all parties involved. Thus, patients should not present themselves as a handicap or incapable of improving their own condition. They develop a greater degreeindependence and have the ability to examine all aspects of their lives to make an informed decision. It could be argued that patients and humans, in general, are of equal value and therefore euthanasia and PAS should not be legalized. Yet this argument fails to address the many other challenges and situations terminally ill patients face. These patients certainly have human value, but that has nothing to do with their decision to follow the process or not. Patients face challenges such as where they will go during their illness, what will happen to their finances, and the type of medical care they will receive. Such a vision therefore shows how valuable patients are, but must also take into account other elements of the situation. The restrictions placed on who can opt for physician-assisted suicide and who cannot are quite meticulous. The San Diego International Law Journal shows how specific the requirements are when it states: "To obtain a PAS under the Death with Dignity Act, a patient must be: 'capable' of making an informed decision, aged at least eighteen years of age, possessing an incurable disease that will result in death within six months, and a resident of Oregon. These aspects are essential for terminally ill patients who wish to use PAS. They ensure that the patient has the capacity to make a wise choice and will ultimately die. Assisted suicide is therefore very controlled and can only be granted to certain patients. This will ensure that no harm is caused to the patient, as the timing of the patient's death must be accurate. An opposing view might be that if we legalize euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide, it will result in legalization of euthanasia and PAS for anyone who requests it. Although this argument seems unlikely, it has been proposed by many opponents of euthanasia and is discussed in the article "Non-Religious Arguments Against Physician-Assisted Suicide and Euthanasia." This is a slippery slope argument, as it is believed that such action will lead to something equally disastrous. This is not true because the guidelines for who can benefit from PAS are quite strict and limited only to those who will die in six months or less. It is unlikely that anyone would qualify for PAS, as the term primarily applies to terminally ill people. Additionally, CNN provides facts about physician-assisted suicide and how the patient has time to make a wise decision. This shows how the District of Columbia allows the patient this ability. CNN states: “In the District of Columbia, to obtain the drug, “a patient must make 2 oral requests, spaced at least 15 days apart, to a treating physician. Make a written request, signed and dated by the patient, to the attending physician before the patient makes their 2nd oral request and at least 48 hours before a covered medication can be prescribed or dispensed. In the 15 days between these oral requests, the patient has more time to think about his decision to commit suicide or not. If psychological examinations and counseling are also carried out before or during these 15 days, then the patient will have the right to make a clear choice. This will reduce the risk of being forced to make a decision and leading to a series of unfortunate events. Some might think that euthanasia or medically assisted dying takes away the gift of life that has been given by God. For example, Dr. James Paul Pandarakalam of the British Journal of Medical Practitioners believes that PAS involves returning the gift of life to God, or to the one who gave it. Although religion occupies a place.