One might observe that there should be no law regarding this matter and it should be a conscience decision. Picket is correct in her reasoning. Although it violates this religious commandment, it shows compassion on the doctors and family. When a patient has a terminal illness, they are suffering greatly. Allowing them to a painless suicide is genuinely compassionate and not cruel at all. One might conclude that the law about doctor assisted suicide should be abolished (Assisted Suicide").
In "The Right to Assisted Suicide,"" Esther B. De La Torre argues that the right to assisted suicide should be extended to patients with terminal illnesses. Torre points out that some people are against it because of religious and moral reasons. Contrarily, she conveys that others are proponents of it because it shows compassion for the patient. Torre suggests that Euthanasia, assisted suicide, carries a negative connotation and is assumed to be murder. However, she indicated that euthanasia is putting someone to death in a painless manner. One might observe that this practice is not immoral and should be allowed. Torre's analysis of this subject is completely valid. .
When someone with a terminal illness has the right to doctor assisted suicide, it provides them with more freedoms. By this law being lifted, the patient has the ability to reduce the financial effect of being in a hospital on their families. They are also given the right to determine their own fate and this right should never be compromised. One might conclude that not allowing doctor assisted suicide is compromising patients' rights ("The Right to Assisted Suicide ").
In "Assisted Suicide Should be Legal," says Major Report to Parliament, Esther Addley argues that the law on assisted suicide should be re-evaluated. She suggests that allowing someone with a terminal illness to end their lives peacefully with the help of a doctor should be allowed.
