Dr. Jack Kevorkian -- everybody knows this name.

The same eerie picture forms in the minds of all upon the uttering of these words.

An image of the white haired old man with his wry smile ghastly grinning out at us appears almost mechanically. We all know him and we are all familiar with his work.

It is because of this line of work that he has come to be known by many different names. Above all, he is known as "Dr. Death."

The issue that surrounds him is one of great controversy and has caused many an argument over the past few years. It is a debate that is to last for a long time, and never come to the final decision of right versus wrong. The issue receiving national recognition is that of euthanasia, or mercy killing.

The idea of euthanasia is that terminally ill patients can opt for life-ending drugs as an ultimate and guaranteed cure for their ailment.

It is, at this point in time, the only guaranteed cure for everything that is haunting society, such as Alzheimer's disease, Lou Gehrig's Disease, and many other degenerative or disabling diseases.

In today's world, bacteria are becoming resistant to drugs and many different treatments are going by the wayside as ineffective, but euthanasia remains as the great escape, the ultimate cure, the only sure thing.

We all know what is involved in the act of mercy killing; the name says it all. We all know that the life of an individual is taken at the request of the afflicted or dying person. And we all know that this tugs on the ethical heartstrings rather hard.

Is it right to take a person's life in order to quell their suffering? According to the government, it is only right in Oregon.

In 1994, Oregon legislature passed an act, by means of voting, that would be the birth of a new law.

This law was titled the Death with Dignity Act and it gave the terminally ill the right to choose death as their preference of prophylactic.

This law was passed by voter approval in Oregon and has survived many different forms of attack. It has since given birth to a new law that has recently been brought into the public spotlight.

The law allows terminally ill, but mentally competent patients to request life ending drugs from their physicians. The law states that registered doctors with the Drug Enforcement Administration can prescribe, but not administer, lethal drugs.

Back in 1998, Kevorkian overstepped this boundary, performing the direct injection of drugs into one of his patients while videotaping the entire event. It was an event that he hoped would bring the issue into the public eye.

The law would have to convict him, for if they didn't, it would show to the public that they condone this act. The law did, in fact, convict Kevorkian, and jail time ensued.

So a competent patient, fully capable of making rational decisions on his or her own, decides that he or she doesn't want to continue on living with the disability they have. The patient is clearly unhappy, and is in pain.

He or she wants to end their life, and they come to a physician, not by means of some harmful or society disrupting device, but by means a certified physician, to handle the task.

Does the patient have this right?

The answer as of now: Only in Oregon.

But I think states should follow the example laid out before us by the Oregon law. It is a regulated attempt to end the suffering and pain of those whom we cannot help with modern medicine. It is a compassionate and sincere option to relieve suffering of those individuals to whom life is a continuous strain.

It also protects the rest of society from more harm than would normally exist if a chronically ill person decides to take his or her life, and put others at risk in the process. The most dangerous person in the world is one who has nothing to lose.

It isn't as if any wacko with a stethoscope is administering these harmful drugs. The DEA tightly regulates those who gain approval to treat their patients in such a way.

This supplies a controlled form of medical treatment, and allows for safe and harmless cures to end suffering.

Being controlled, it would ensure the tight regulation of those with the power to administer this treatment.

Those who get caught acting without the permission of this council would be subject to prosecution, being tried as murderers just as they would be had they taken a life in any other way. This regulation would benefit the program, and further enhance the positive aspect of mercy killing.

As mentioned before, those who are dying of life-threatening ailments would be given a safe and harmless passage out of life.

Suppose a patient who is terminally ill wants to end his or her life. They are so set in their ways that they want to end their life, that they lose sight of the harm that would befall innocent bystanders as they perform a deadly act, and take someone else with them.

A car crash, a suicide, these and other practices could be avoided if one was given a safe and private way of ending their life... medically regulated, of course.

If a person has the mindset to die, then nothing, not the law, not ethics, not right or wrong, is going to stop them from committing that act.

Legalizing euthanasia would certainly minimize the extent of harm, potential or real, brought about by this attempt at the ending of life.

Ultimately, who has the final decision to decide whether to end a life or not?

Is it the government or those in power?

When we elect officials to run the country we live in, does that also grant them the permission to decide our personal boundaries and make the decisions as to what is right and what is wrong in our personal lives?

Doesn't that right belong to the individual, and doesn't the individual have the right to act within his or her best interest, be it right or wrong by societies terms?

I believe that the individual, and the individual alone, is the only person who has the right to decide whether they should live or die in a situation as such.

If a patient with no other way out decides to take life-ending drugs for ultimate relief, then it is immoral not to obey their wishes and keep that person in suffering, denying them of any respite or relief.

And so, the ethical debate rages on. Which is more humane, telling a person that they cannot end their suffering, or allowing one the ultimate ending to their pain?

Who has the right to end their own life besides God, the individual or the governing power? This, my friends, is the heart of the battle between right and wrong. These questions fuel a debate that is never to be settled.

But I am proposing that we all follow Oregon's example, and legalize and regulate euthanasia. It is the more humane choice, and is the final choice for those of us who are suffering day by day. The process is quite humane. So long as it is a regulated option, mercy killing would be a great cure.