Suppose someone has just been diagnosed with cancer. They have six months to live and their doctor has made it clear that those months will be painful. The patient must endure the pain or move to a place where he or she could die by choice. This situation afflicts many terminally ill patients around the world. Euthanasia and medically assisted suicide for terminally ill patients should be legalized, since the decision of life or death should be in the hands of the patient, who is the rightful owner of his life. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on "Why Violent Video Games Shouldn't Be Banned"? Get an original essay The Middle East Journal of Cancer advances this view in an article advocating euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide. Part of the article focuses on a study conducted among cancer patients, oncologists, and the general public in the United States. The article states: “Both cancer patients and oncologists' attitudes toward euthanasia have been assessed in the United States. The results indicated that approximately two-thirds of cancer patients and the public found euthanasia acceptable for those suffering from unremitting pain.” The majority of the American population supports physician-assisted suicide in relation to the ongoing and unrelenting pain that comes with cancer. These people see it as an outlet for ultimate suffering. It is unfair to allow people on the opposite side to make this decision for cancer patients who are for it. And if legalized, PAS would remain a matter of choice and could not be legally imposed on other patients. By legalizing this process, this could be a potential option for those who side with euthanasia over hardship. On the other hand, some might argue that doctors who allow physician-assisted suicide are aiding patients in the act of committing murder. This topic is brought to you 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 in the act of dying. However, it is incorrect to compare this act to murder, since murder is often committed improperly or unjustly. The doctor assists the patient through consent and known medical practices. Therefore this act cannot be considered synonymous with any form of execution. Many who oppose euthanasia believe that terminally ill patients resort to such a drastic measure only because they fear burdening their family or not receiving adequate healthcare. Miranda Barbuzzi provides a solution to these problems with this issue. It states: “These fears could be alleviated through mandatory psychological examinations and counseling for both the patient in question and his family by a psychologist specializing in terminal illnesses. These sessions would allow a professional to adequately analyze the patient's psychological state and any real or imagined external pressure on him. Such psychological tests would eliminate any factors other than the disease itself that could influence the patient's decision. Patients will focus solely on themselves and whether completing the process will be beneficial to them. Family examination and counseling will extend this solution to all parties involved. Therefore, patients should not present themselves as a liability or incapable of improving their condition. They develop a greater degree of independence and have the ability to consider all aspects of their lives formake an informed decision. It could be argued that patients and humans, in general, have the same value and therefore euthanasia and PAS should not be legalized. However, this argument fails to address the many other challenges and situations faced by terminally ill patients. These patients do have human value, but that is not related to their decision to undergo the trial or not. Patients face challenges such as where they will go during their illness, what will happen to their finances, and what kind of medical care they will receive. So such a view shows how valuable patients are, but it must also consider other elements of the situation. The restrictions imposed on who can opt for medically assisted suicide and who cannot are quite meticulous. The San Diego International Law Journal shows how precise the requirements are when it states: “To obtain PAS under the Death with Dignity Act, a patient must be: “capable” of making an informed decision, be at least eighteen years of age, possess an incurable disease that will lead to 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 ability to make a healthy choice and will ultimately die. Therefore, assisted suicide is very controlled and can only be administered to certain patients. It will ensure that no harm happens to the patient as the timing for the patient's death must be exact. An opposing view might be that if we legalize euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide, what follows will be the legalization of euthanasia and PAS for anyone who requests it. Although this argument seems unlikely, it has been made by numerous opponents of euthanasia and is addressed in the article “Non-Faith-Based Arguments Against Physician-Assisted Suicide and Euthanasia.” This is a slippery slope as he believes that such an action will lead to something so disastrous. This is not true because the guidelines for who can receive PAS are quite strict and limited only to those who will die within six months or less. It is not likely that anyone would qualify for PAS because the term primarily applies only to people who are terminally ill. Additionally, CNN provides data on physician-assisted suicide and how the patient is given time to make a correct decision. Show 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, separated by at least 15 days, to a treating physician. Submit a written request, signed and dated by the patient, to the treating physician before the patient makes his or her second oral request and at least 48 hours before a covered drug may be prescribed or dispensed. In the 15 days that separate these oral requests, the patient is given more time to reflect on his decision to commit assisted suicide or not. If psychological examinations and counseling are also carried out before or within these 15 days, the patient will have the right to make a clear choice. This will reduce the risk of being forced into a decision and leading to a subsequent series of unfortunate events. Some may think that euthanasia or medically assisted dying is taking 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 giving the gift of life back to God, or to the giver. Although religion is an important part of the lives of billions of people around the world, this argument is invalid because it does not address the secular view.