Title: Euthanasia and Assisted Suicide Should Not Be Legal
 Container: Opposing Viewpoints in Context
 Authors: Rita L. Marker, Kathi Hamlon
 Editors: Noel Merino
 Publisher: Greenhaven Press
 Year of Publication: 2012
 
 Is this source reliable?
 This source is reliable because it was written by two qualified and trustworthy individuals and also because it was published on Opposing Viewpoints which makes it trustworthy. This article was written in 2012 which is a little old but still within a range that makes the information relevant. This source provides both a pro and con argument for legalizing euthanasia so it avoids any bias. This source is useful because it provides the reader with a large amount of information on the pro and con arguments for euthanasia.

1.     Neither the law nor medical ethics requires that "everything be done" to keep a person alive. Insistence, against the patient's wishes, that death be postponed by every means available is contrary to law and practice. It is also cruel and inhumane.

-        This quote is important because it demonstrates an important argument towards the legalization of euthanasia. This quote shows how it is not legally or medically required that a person be kept alive if they do not want to be.

2.     There are many definitions for the word "terminal." For example, Jack Kevorkian who participated in the deaths of more than 130 people before he was convicted of murder said that a terminal illness was "any disease that curtails life even for a day." Dutch psychiatrist Dr. Boudewijn Chabot who provided a fatal dose of drugs to a depressed, but physically healthy, woman, stated that "persistently suicidal patients are, indeed, terminal."

-        This quote is important because it shows how the interpretation of the word terminal can have a huge impact on who is eligible for euthanasia. This quote shows that when the word terminal is broadly interpreted, anyone can be terminal

Mostly pro article on Euthanasia, has stats, religious points of view, talks about past cases.
 
 
 Title: Assisted Suicide
 Container: CQ Researcher
 Authors: Reed Karaim
 Editors: No
 Publisher: CQ Researcher
 Year of Publication: May 3, 2017
 
 Is this source reliable?

While this source was not written by a medical professional, it was written by a reporter with much experience. The article also contains a pro and con section which was written by two reputable individuals. The article provides information on both the pros and cons of euthanasia with the use of actual stories, graphs, and information cited from other journals and studies.

1.       “Two arguments for death with dignity leap from this experience. The most intuitive derives from compassion: What possible good is served by denying escape from those final weeks of slow decline and suffering?... This suggests the second argument: The supreme value we place on self-determination in matters that are both private and also of fundamental concern to the individual.”

-        This quote is important because it provides two strong arguments on the pro euthanasia side. It explains why euthanasia is a valid option for some patients and appeals to the end of suffering argument and the human right argument.

2.       “We now have good home and hospital palliative care programs, effectively able to eliminate or greatly reduce pain and suffering. Making good use of those medical skills is the hospice program, now helping more than a million persons a year receive sensitive care in dying. Physician-assisted suicide is thus rarely needed, as the citizens of Oregon and Washington state, where it is legal, have demonstrated. They make use of it in exceedingly small numbers..”

-        This quote is important because it demonstrates the flip side of the euthanasia argument. This quote is providing an argument on why euthanasia is unnecessary and what alternative options to euthanasia exist.

Sprung, Charles L., et al. “Physician-Assisted Suicide and Euthanasia: Emerging Issues From a Global Perspective.” Journal Of Palliative Care, vol. 33, no. 4, Oct. 2018, pp. 197–203. EBSCOhost, doi:10.1177/0825859718777325.
 
 
Title: Physician Assisted Suicide and Euthanasia: Emerging Issues From a Global Perspective
Container: Journal of Palliative Care
Authors: Charles L Sprung
Editors: no
Publisher: SAGE
Year of Publication: 2018
 
Is this source reliable? This source is reliable because it was written by a medical professional and published by and academic journal. This source was published in 2018 making it especially relevant. This source show bias towards not legalizing PAS and euthanasia so that is something that the reader should be aware of.

 

1.     Physicians have a duty to eliminate pain and suffering, not the person with the pain and suffering. Solutions for suffering lie in improving palliative care and social conditions and addressing the reasons for PAS-E requests. They should not include changing medical practice to allow PAS-E.

-        This quote is important because it sums up what the source is trying to communicate quickly and concisely. 

2.     Some believe legalization of PAS-E will lead to its extension to people who are not terminally ill or suffering. Once intentional killing is allowed, people with access will expand (the logical slippery slope) and abuse will occur (the practical slippery slope).

-        This quote is important because it outlines one of the main arguments against the legalization of PAS and euthanasia, which is the misuse and abuse of the practice.

 

 

1.       In the United States, older but more methodologically rigorous surveys generally have shown that fewer than half of physicians support legalizing euthanasia and PAS.^44,62-66 Contrary to the public, physicians are more likely to support PAS than euthanasia. Surveys among physicians in European countries and in Australia, where neither euthanasia nor PAS have been legalized, report similar results.⁵⁷ For instance, a review of 15 surveys (n = 13 857) of UK physicians conducted between 1990 and 2010 found that the majority of physicians opposed legalizing euthanasia and PAS.⁶⁷ The main factor associated with opposition to euthanasia and PAS was strength of religious views.

-        This quote is important because it provides me with information on physicians of various nationalities views on the legalization of euthanasia and PAS. It also provides me with a reason why these doctors may not support PAS and euthanasia.

 

2.       The most recent rigorous surveys (1996) have suggested that among US physicians (n = 1902), 18% have ever received a request for PAS and 11% for euthanasia; 3% had ever complied with a request for PAS, and 5% had complied with a request for euthanasia.⁷² The rate is much higher for US oncologists (n = 3299): 56% have received requests for PAS, while 38% have received requests for euthanasia; 11% had ever performed PAS and 4% euthanasia (1998).⁶² Even in Oregon and Washington state, only a few physicians participate in PAS. For instance, in Oregon in 2015, the 218 prescriptions were written by 106 physicians, just 1.0% of actively licensed physicians.²

-        This quote is important because it provides information on the use of euthanasia by physicians and information on how often it is requested.