Doctors have a responsibility to diagnose and treat illnesses and injuries in order to preserve other lives. However, there is the scenario in which there is nothing that can be done to ameliorate the patient’s condition.With those patients nearly close to death, most would feel despondent and hopeless while waiting for their inevitable death. Unfortunately, their only options that they possibly see are either to wait for their passing or take their own lives by their own hands through suicide. Further looking into the grim idea of suicide, there is the medical practice of euthanasia. Legal in five states in the U.S., euthanasia is the ability to induce a painless and quick death to severely ill patients, much like a form of mercy-killing. Major controversy in this practice is evident regarding whether or not it is ethical to put another’s life to an end at their own and doctor’s consents. Many philosophers have argued for and against euthanasia with claims centered around the idea of free will and choice and religious concepts. The morality of euthanasia is constantly debated on in regards to the question of if euthanasia should be legal in all states in the nation. On one side of the spectrum, famous modern philosopher Peter Singer has offered his stance on this issue. Following the philosophy of utilitarianism, he is a firm believer that it is our duty to make decisions that maximize happiness or reduce suffering in the greatest number of people regardless of the measures taken. Therefore, he believes that euthanasia is morally right since it completely mitigates the suffering of someone due to illness or injury. He justifies this practice by claiming that it exercises freedom of decision-making as it is mainly done through the patient’s consent and free will. Singer provides strong views towards this controversy mainly by discussing our freedom to make any choice we desire. I agree that people must be able to make any decision they desire so long as it doesn’t harm too many people severely. At a state where nothing can be done to make someone’s condition better, that person should be given the privilege to give themselves a painless death at their own hands instead of suffering immensely while waiting for their end. However, flaws are present in this argument which Peter Singer acknowledges and considered but refuses these counterarguments. Euthanasia can lead to potential abuse from doctors to patients in the scenario where the doctor commits mercy-killing without the patient’s direct consent. While the patient’s suffering is gone as a result, I believe that it doesn’t excuse the doctor from what I consider murder. This is because the doctor made an assumption that the patient wants to be dead rather than suffering and ended their life without any consent. The doctor is playing off as some sort of God believing that he was obliged to end another’s life despite the possibility that the patient actually wanted to continue living. In addition, there are the awful cases where a doctor uses euthanasia as an cover-up for the murder of a patient in order to avoid the severe consequences of committing murder. I believe that euthanasia is morally right if the patient gives his or her consent to end their lives with solid proof that did in order to avoid situations where doctors kill patients and deem it as assisted suicide. People do have the ability to choose whatever they want to their body, including if they wish to end their lives at their most despondent of situations.On the opposite side of the spectrum, there are philosophers that argued against this medical practice like classic philosopher Immanuel Kant. Kant provides different reasons of why euthanasia is unethical and immoral. Following the philosophy of deontology, he believes that it is our moral duty to God to preserve our lives and that it is against God to commit suicide which can also be applied to euthanasia. He claims that while we do have freedom, we shouldn’t be obliged to take our own lives since it is cowardly to degrade our worth that God has given to human beings just because you are miserable. This argument presents many ideas that I believe doesn’t hold much strength since it is based off religion which people have different views towards. The idea of God may not be relevant to some people that are either don’t personally believe in God or aren’t so religious, meaning that Kant’s claims wouldn’t be persuading to them. Religious beliefs shouldn’t dictate people with very different beliefs on what they can and can’t do with their own lives. However, there are arguments present that I somewhat agree with. Kant implies that we have limited freedom because he states we shouldn’t be given the choice to end our own lives through suicide. Life doesn’t have to be completely full of pleasures and it is evident that some people are less fortunate than others in modern society. In my opinion, people must never give up on life if they are facing unfortunate plights such as mental illnesses, poverty, and failure. These shouldn’t be considered as justified reasons to end life if there are chances you can attempt to improve your life but I wouldn’t deem it “cowardly” as Kant describes it. Euthanasia should be done to people that are facing a situation where no medical help can be done currently to heal them or at least increase their life expectancy. The choice of requesting euthanasia will give people a lot of freedom that can be questionable and somewhat dangerous because there are some people who will end their lives for unjustified reasons if not limited.The idea of suicide, and death in general, is very depressing to think about and many people will turn a blind eye to it. However, people should be aware that suicide is a major problem in the world as it is the 10th leading cause of death in the U.S. and nearly 50,000 Americans die by suicide every year. Many of these victims have faced a continuous state of depression and hopelessness and believed that suicide was the best option to end their suffering. Loss can be challenging to face and if one person choose to end their life, significant others to that person will faced grief that can last for a long time. This can be the same with euthanasia since that person still chooses to end their life because of a similar state of depression. Perhaps, it can be seen as different from suicide, depending on the person, because you can be prepared for that day while suicide is unpredictable. Euthanasia can potentially bring more happiness to the most amount of people because while the patient’s significant others will feel loss, they can also feel relief knowing that the patient is no longer suffering from their condition. Personally, euthanasia should be legal in all fifty states of America but only if they are limits and precautions taken to prevent as much abuse as possible. People with incurable diseases that doctors can’t help mitigate the damages should be presented the choice to get an euthanasia in which they can deny or give consent. People who still have a chance to live longer should take it but I believe others don’t have a right to force someone to continue living as it causes more suffering to that person. I understand the controversy since I do believe that people should live their life to the fullest and make attempts to improve their lifestyles. Only to certain extents I believe that people should encourage others to live and intense force is too far for me because it often does more harm than help in my opinion. Being a strong believer in pro-choice like Peter Singer, I agree with the idea of choosing what to do with our own bodies which includes the ability to die with dignity when faced with the situation of being close to death by illness. As human beings, we have a right to make decisions and I believe that it’s immoral to force someone to do something they don’t want to do. This should count the decision of whether or not we want to live on knowing that we are going to die very soon while experiencing a lot of pain. Kant’s religious beliefs on this issue seems to mainly apply to people who followed the same or similar religion as him, making the argument weaker in my opinion. His opinion of suicide being a cowardly action is rather harsh in my opinion because those people who attempted suicide believed that no one was there to help them and there was no value in their life. We have the ability to choose what we desire, especially with our own bodies and lives.Human lives must be treated carefully and respectfully but there are many obstacles that prevent it from being simple. Thinking about people’s various beliefs and ethics, we can never make everyone satisfied with our actions as some will agree and others will disagree. People may believe that free choice is more important than preserving lives and people may think otherwise. Euthanasia may be seen as encouraging freedom of choice or as a practice too powerful for anyone to possess. Doctors have this power to basically control someone’s life which others may find unethical because who can say that they only can play God and kill someone out of mercy, regardless of consent. Euthanasia is an issue that will be debated about for a long time since everyone has a different opinion towards it. Works Cited”Definition Of Euthanasia.” Merriam-Webster.Com, 2018, https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/euthanasia. “Euthanasia (The Practice Of Morality).” Utm.Edu, 2018, https://www.utm.edu/staff/jfieser/class/300/6-euthanasia.htm. Gracyke Theodore.”Peter Singer On Euthanasia Outline Notes.” Web.Mnstate.Edu, 2018, http://web.mnstate.edu/gracyk/courses/phil%20115/Singer_on_Euthanasia.htm. Stafforini, Pablo. “Taking Life: Humans, By Peter Singer.” Utilitarian.Net, 2018, https://www.utilitarian.net/singer/by/1993—-.htm. “Suicide Statistics — AFSP.” AFSP, 2018, https://afsp.org/about-suicide/suicide-statistics/.