Since passing its Death with Dignity Act into law in 1997, Oregon remains the only state in America to make physician-assisted suicide an explicit legal right. Currently, the legality of physician-assisted suicide falls under the jurisdiction of each individual state. Had the United States Supreme Court ruled differently in a recent case, however, the issue would have transferred to federal jurisdiction. The Death with Dignity National Center (DDNC) takes responsibility for developing the original Death with Dignity Act and has since moved on to proposing similar legislation in other states. It also champions states' rights, fearing that placing physician-assisted suicide under federal jurisdiction would severely hinder its goals. The DDNC has led the legal movement for making physician-assisted suicide an end of life choice available in each state, as well as for keeping that decision at the state level. Utilizing a content analysis, this study coded for frames used by the DDNC in its press releases and frames used in newspaper coverage of death with dignity across the same period of time. It was found that press releases about and newspaper coverage of the death with dignity social movement shared significant correlations in terms of the frames each used, as well as the level of substance given to these frames. Few significant correlations were found, however, for frame valence. It seems as though discussion of this social movement utilizes the same substantive or ambiguous frames, but cannot decide whether these frames are positive, neutral, or negative. / Master of Arts

The death-and-dying debates, especially where they focus on euthanasia is now a global debated issue and this act (euthanasia) is now practiced in a lot of countries worldwide despite some countries have not legalized it. Some religious groups and individuals are in line with the arguments for euthanasia because it provides a way to relieve extreme pain, provides a way of relief when a person’s quality of life is low and it frees up medical funds to help other people while on the other hand, other religious groups and individual base their arguments against euthanasia because such act and practice devalues human life, and because there is a "slippery slope’ effect that has occurred where euthanasia has been first been legalized for only the terminally ill and later laws are changed to allow it for other people or to be done non-voluntarily. A current debated issue is whether effective palliative care laws are changed to allow it for other people or to b e done non-voluntarily. A current debated issue is whether effective palliative care can have an influence over people’s choices towards euthanasia.