Imagine being bed-ridden and incapable of speech, but having the plug pulled on you because of someone else’s decision. Scary, right? Before we get into that, an important thing to discuss is rhetoric. Rhetoric is most commonly associated with political speakers, and the speeches that come from their campaigns; however, rhetoric is not exclusive to speeches.

There is a form of rhetoric in almost everything, and any and all forms of persuasion are set in a sense of rhetoric. Because of this, it is easy to imagine that along with the perspective of rhetoric comes a number of controversial topics, and different senses of persuasion associated with each opinion. Rhetoric can be associated with TV commercials, advertisements and, of course, the justification of murder among the elderly and ill.

Euthanasia, or assisted suicide, is the practice of intentionally ending a life with the intent of relieving pain and suffering. It is generally performed on patients who have been diagnosed with a terminal illness, but this is exactly where the first controversy comes into play. The exact definition of what a terminal illness is defined as has been tossed up for almost half a century. According to the Yearbook of Private International Law, at one point, in 1992, euthanasia activist Jack Kevorkian, claimed that a terminal illness was “any disease that curtails life even for a day”. Dr. Kevorkian has since been convicted of murder, after initiating and participating in the death of over 130 people, gaining himself the nickname “Dr. Death.”

However, to counter his definition of a terminal illness, Oregon’s assisted suicide laws define a terminal illness as a condition in which the patient will die within six months from the diagnoses. According to the Yearbook of Private International Law, one can interpret that, "A Law that permits assisted suicide or euthanasia for persons that are terminally ill could apply to virtually anyone if that person is no longer receiving food or fluids.” In fact, American author S. Pearl Buck has been quoted in saying, "Euthanasia is a long, smooth-sounding word, and it conceals its danger as long, smooth words do, but the danger is there, nevertheless."

Perception of a situation is crucial to understanding the severity of the stakes. Take a toddler, for example. The way a child communicates a problem across to an adult will oftentimes be exaggerated, past the point of full comprehension, and can cause a reception that is unwarranted—the perfect example being the boy who cried wolf. So, when you take this same concept, but apply it to an institution, it is easy to imagine that the same principal applies. Delivery is key.

Moving forward with this analogy, place the power in the hands of a financial advisor. If the drugs necessary to complete an assisted suicide cost an average of $40, and the treatment for a patient can cost upward of $40,000, which option do you think would be pushed (Smith, Discovery Institute)? Again, this is all a matter of perception, but perhaps Dr. Death goes to show that all of this speculation is not just a speculation at all.

With the normalization of murder as a medical cure, one must come to speculate the degree of illness you must reach in order to be in line for Euthanasia. Like all medications, there has to be a boundary, right? So, taking this into consideration, as well as the skewed definitions of what “terminal” really means, it is important to asses the fact that mental illness comes into play as well. The Suicide and Life-Threatening Behavior journal has a number of articles on the subject matter, and although not all may be credible, it is important to take the public opinion into consideration.

If an article claims that assisted suicide is limited to those with terminal illness, does that include or exclude mental debilitation or psychological pain? Although not directly physical, both of these can become factors in a mental deterioration or brain death. So would that mean that any suicidal impulse qualifies you for euthanasia? Who exactly gets to deem which quality of life is livable or not?

With the conclusion in mind that perception is key in defining terminal illness, does that take away the credibility euthanasia holds? As a legitimate means of murder, it is valuable to asses that such a measure is not necessary to take, and that in fact, the stigma that follows euthanasia and assisted suicide is warranted. Moreover, the use of pathos through rhetoric in order to stimulate sympathy for the ill has been promoting the practice of euthanasia, and justifying its murderous means.