Euthanasia Sarah Quinn is 45-year-old woman whose mother was diagnosed with early-onset Alzheimer’s disease at 46, and Sarah has been told in advance that she will most likely inherit the disease. Thus, making her forget any recently learned knowledge. Sarah is stuck in an infinite loop that will ruin her career and her life. One day she notices she has asked her husband the same thing three times. As Sarah’s husband pointed out to her, she has forgotten where she stuck her keys. She checked the pantry and there they were. Mrs. Quinn couldn’t remember and normally wouldn’t have been bothered. However, knowing what fate is soon to come, she is concerned with her family having to support her monetarily, herself becoming almost a vegetable, and most importantly, dealing with the tragic effects of the disease at home. Sarah knows soon she will have trouble even remembering the names of her loved ones. She fears the moment that she because completely incompetent. Knowing this is soon to come Sarah Quinn wants to relieve her family of this burned. Euthanasia is a viable option; patients who have only short terms to live with debilitating diseases should have the option to die with dignity and respect, saving not only themselves from pain but also their family. The United States’ Government has outlawed euthanasia; however, the choice and time or place of death is definitely a private affair where the government should not intervene, says Kevin Schneider in the New Your Times Magazine. The Bill of Rights was added to the constitution to protect natural born rights of the citizens of the United States of America, in which privacy definitely falls under; hence it is ones own life we are discussing (Schneider). Therefore, outlawing euthanasia contradicts the fundamental values held by the founding fathers, taking rights from the terminally ill is not only morally wrong but also degrading. If a terminally ill patient decides to not tolerate with pain or suffering, what right does someone have to interrupt and make he or she do so? The first amendment of the constitution guarantees freedom of religion, and religion has played a massive role in the opposing side to the issue of euthanasia. However, if one does not believe the same about death as others, he or she shouldn’t have to bear the consequences. Religion today is a highly personal matter; people keep their beliefs private because it shouldn’t afflict others, and their religion does not concern them. Taking away the freedom to die, is forcing these beliefs on citizens who have the right to practice however they please. The Bill of Rights ensures privacy rights and religious rights; furthermore, the right to die is a highly private matter that every state in the US should grant to their citizens. A majority of the Christian population is against Euthanasia; however, there are more reasons for them to support physician-assisted suicide than to be against it. A stereotypical Christian wouldn’t keep a human being in pain or pain to come. Not just Christianity, but many religions are against any form of suicide. Although this shouldn’t even affect how some people chose to die, religions typically believe in happiness and peace, something the terminally ill can’t gain if they are stuck in pain from their illness. If the Christianity populace really wanted to help people in this condition, euthanasia would be in their best interest in order to allow people to end their own suffering. Humans show compassion to all other living things, such as if an animal needs to be put out of its misery the human race can do so. Humans should have the right to end their own life if absolutely necessary. Humans were originally given control according to Religion; therefore, if one’s life needs to end, then by appropriate measures it should. Physician assisted suicide is an appropriate way for pain to be relieved, and if it is not mandated, people will and have found more extreme ways of dealing with