Consider the problem of nations. In Canada, a doctor assisted suicide is illegal. Once the life support has been plugged, the doctor cannot remove the plug from the patient. Yet the patient can, under certain instances where competency has been established, refuse the machine and thus die. In the United States, the law is varies from state to state. In Kentucky, euthanasia is permitted when a panel of "experts", which include a physician, psychiatrist, and a surgeon, declare that the patient has no chance of recovery and the patient will only continue to suffer until their death. In California, euthanasia is outright illegal and the vast interpretation of the law will label any who assist in the suicide guilty. At the extreme side, the Netherlands totally permits euthanasia when assisted by a physician. Indeed, public opinion in the Netherlands holds that eighty percent of the population favor euthanasia, while only ten percent are against it. The remaining ten percent have no opinion on the matter. Even though the Netherlands is a more progressive country, leaning towards the left, the problem can be seen across the globe. The problem of euthanasia must be considered a global problem, or a social issue because it does not relate to just one individual, nor a group of individuals, but to society. It was once said that how we treat our sick is a good measure of our society. Canada may be rated the best place to live in the world, but does that mean if we do not let our terminally sick die, then we are barbarians? Conversely, does that mean that the Netherlands, because they allow those in pain to die, is a better country?

In recent years, a number of proposals have been made to support the legalization of euthanasia. Among them are the ideas of a committee or a panel, much like in the Netherlands, where a number of experts in their field would decide whether the patient should be allowed to die or not. First, the psychiatrist would do an extensive study of the patient to make sure that they are competent enough to make such a decision on their own. Today, there exists many tests which may be used to judge whether the patient is normal or neurotic, or if the patient is sane or insane. A psychologist would decide whether the patient should undergo such an action and would evaluate the consequences the action might have on family and friends. The surgeon of expertise would decide if the condition is indeed terminal and provide the prognosis, citing if a cure is at all possible. The other physician would most likely be the family doctor because this doctor is most personal with the patient and aside from knowing the patient more intimately than the others, would also provide comfort and relaxation in a stressful situation. Those who believe in keeping euthanasia illegal counter that such "panels of experts" are human and are naturally subject to error. The fundamental attribution error, and the error of group-think are most likely to occur when a group of people, who already believe that a person should be permitted to die, will find reasons to support their view and ignore those that counter their beliefs. The error of group-think, as its name implies, means that the minority of a group tend to change their views and shift them more extremely to the other group in the possible efforts to share a common belief and fit in, or to avoid group conflict. Thus far, the use of a panel in the Netherlands, Sweden and Switzerland have superficially proven successful, however the panel is a new concept and further study must be used to fully evaluate its consequences, successes and failures. In addition, these countries have tended to be more liberal in their views and more accepting of differing views. If we implement the panel or committee system in Canada, its effectiveness would most probably be weakened on the grounds that Canadian courts have tended to be more conservative in its rulings. Therefore, any such panel would still be

Some common words found in the essay are:
, Supreme Court, Criminal Code, Sue Ferguson, Applied Ethics, Hippocratic Oath, Sweden Switzerland, Wallace French, Physician-Assisted Suicide, Marcel Gervais, court jester, health care, favoring euthanasia, pain patient, terminally ill, comatose patients, supreme court, euthanasia illegal, coma ten days, assisted suicide, financial burden, ten days ten, patient chance recovery, choose own death, alleviate pain patient,
Approximate Word count = 2929
Approximate Pages = 12 (250 words per page double spaced)