Euthanasia is defined as the deliberate ending of one's life by means of either administering prescribed lethal drugs or withholding life-sustaining treatment. The word itself is derived from the Greek roots "eu," meaning "good,” and "thanatos," meaning "death." Consequently, the issue becomes controversial, as euthanasia advocates argue a "right to die a good death" whilst others deem the killing of another being, regardless of motives, unethical and unlawful. Is it moral to end a life to end suffering? Can one truly die a good death? Is a so-called “good death” dignified? Euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide suicide suggest so, yet they are a threat to society and defeat the intended purpose of the medical profession. Euthanasia and/or physician- assisted suicide should not be legalized as they are dangerous, defy written law and the basic ethics of medicine, and belittle the value of a human life.
     

The idea of assisted death appears to have only good intentions but is a serious risk to take. The slippery slope argument exemplifies the most serious of such risks: the widespread acceptance of killing. It is supported by numerous studies which have proven the existence of the slippery slope in most of the few countries that currently legalize euthanasia. Statistics show the continuous increase of euthanasia deaths especially in the Netherlands. In 2006, there were only 1,923 reported euthanasia deaths in the country. In 2007, the number rose to 2,120. In 2011, this figure nearly doubled, with nearly 4,000 deaths to euthanasia in the Netherlands (Daily Mail Reporter). As the slippery slope proceeds to further evolve and solidify, the number of deaths will likely continue to increase substantially. The potential legalization of euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide thus pose a danger to society, as killing will become the norm. Studies even show that some of the killings in the Netherlands are now nonvoluntary, and psychiatric evaluation is no longer required, leading to the deaths of patients who would have wanted to live had they received appropriate treatment. Euthanasia is now even offered in the Netherlands for people over 70 who feel tired of life (US National Library of Medicine 2011). Killing should not become the solution to the problems of mankind.
     

Euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide contradict written law and medical precautions. Euthanasia is illegal in 45 states (Barone) and according to West’s Encyclopedia of American Law, is categorized as a class of criminal homicide (Beville 374). Physician-assisted suicide also violates the Hippocratic Oath, a code of conduct that doctors have sworn by since the time of the ancient Greeks. A line in the classical version of the Hippocratic Oath reads, “I will neither give a deadly drug to anybody who asked for it, nor will I make a suggestion to this effect” (Tyson). Euthanasia hence disregards one of the most heavily implemented principles of medicine: the preservation of life.
     

Introducing euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide to society as a normality is the equivalent of introducing the devaluation of a human life. When a physician ends the life of a patient, regardless of reason, it is being implied that that life is no longer worth living or worth being saved-that the patient should die rather than live. Stephen Hawking is a famous example. At age 21, he was diagnosed with amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS), which is a type of motor neuron disease that weakens muscles and wosens overall physical function (Stephen Hawking Biography). Doctors gave him two and half years to live. Despite all odds, his life lasted several decades thereafter: he is 74 years old today. Not only has Hawking lived far beyond what he was expected to, he is known for his exceptional work in the fields of mathematics and cosmology. He introduced Hawking radiation: the theory that black holes are not completely black and emit radiation. His work demonstrated the necessity of combining Einstein’s theory of general relativity with quantum theory, which is a theory of atoms and their components, to create the theory of quantum gravity, or “the theory of everything” (Mastin). Such a theory now greatly reduces speculation regarding the Big Bang. Had Stephen Hawking opted for assisted suicide, as euthanasia advocates would advise him to do so considering his “quality of life,” such advances in science would never exist. Is it justifiable to say his life was not worth living?
     

Some may argue that euthanasia should be legalized and it would be unethical to keep the practice illegal. Perhaps the most popular argument euthanasia advocates refer to is that it would put an end to terminally ill patients’ suffering. In fact, 77% of patients requesting physician-assisted suicide had moderate to severe pain (US National Library of Medicine 2006). While pain is a concern, meanwhile, it is not the primary reason for euthanasia. Oregon’s public health department reported that only 23% of patients named physical pain as a reason for looking into assisted death (Hale). And yet palliative care exists to assist that minority of patients. End-of-life care can treat pain in virtually all circumstances, and 90% of advanced cancer patients reported sufficient pain relief using the current WHO ladder method of pain management (US National Library of Medicine 2007). With palliative care in place, euthanasia does not exist to end suffering, but to end the sufferer.
     

In accordance with pain regarding end-of-life decisions, proponents of euthanasia display great concern for “death with dignity.” States such as Oregon and Washington have Death with Dignity laws or acts. Indeed, 79.3% of patients mentioned longing for such a death as a reason for applying for euthanasia (Hale). Nevertheless, the term dignity is being used in the wrong context. According to Merriam-Webster, dignity is “the quality of being worthy of honor or respect.” That being the case, how does one die with dignity? How could it be honorable to die? On what account is dying, letting go, giving up, a prideful event or one worthy of due respect? How does one succumb to the inevitable evils of the world with such dignity? If death even be associated with dignity, the sole reason should be for the opposite of what it is now. If all that is left in life is accepting imminent death, then so it be. If all that is left is fighting, trying to stay alive so a cure or effective treatment can be developed, pushing through, no matter how hard or painful the battle is, then and only then is a death dignified. Then and only then was there an effort, and effort that dignifies death.
     

Several alternatives can be offered in place of euthanasia that would be of greater benefit to both the doctor and the patient, yet more importantly, to their relationship. Every state in the U.S. gives a patient the right to create an advance directive, which outlines to what extent live-saving treatment should be carried out or when it should be discontinued under specifically listed circumstances (Golden). Supporters of euthanasia insist on giving every patient the right to choose the time of their death, and advance directives provide them with such an opportunity. The American Medical Directors Association is in support of this cause. They encourage doctors to address advance directives to their patients so to provide them with a medical plan that is both well-planned and accommodative (Position Statement). Not only can choice be handled more appropriately by ways other than euthanasia, the trust crucial to a healthy doctor-patient relationship can be better protected without it. Giving doctors the power to kill their patients, for any purpose, destroys the trust instilled between the two. However, patients facing impending death who are experiencing significant discomfort have the right to be sedated to the point that their discomfort is relieved, even if that entails hastening death (Golden). With patients exercising the rights to both request additional medication and refuse further treatment, it is entirely unnecessary for them to risk the relationship established between them and their doctor for a cause that can easily be replaced or put to better use. The World Medical Association directs their views to this relationship. The WMA Resolution on Physician-Assisted Suicide states, "Where the assistance of the physician is intentionally and deliberately directed at enabling an individual to end his or her own life, the physician acts unethically." The immorality of the physician’s actions illustrates how the relationship is potentially destroyed as a result of euthanasia. Thus to avoid harm to a valuable relationship, patients should be presented with other options available to them.
     

Euthanasia is wrong in principle and dangerous in practice. It triggers societal approval of killing and therefore disregards the hazards of the slippery slope. Physician-assisted suicide  disobeys the Hippocratic Oath. Legalizing either practice would derogate the worth of a human life. Today, with sophisticated methods of pain management and with advance directives available, euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide should not be legalized nor be an option at all. The answer lies in the words of philosopher and bioethics specialist Daniel Callahan, “Euthanasia ... is an act that requires two people to make it possible, and a complicit society to make it acceptable.” (US National Library of Medicine 2010)