.
Ones Individual liberty needs to be considered even though society has strong interest in preserving life. Society's interest in life preservation should be lessened when a person is terminally ill and has strong desire to end their life. Prohibiting assisted death excessively limits ones personal liberty, and their right to make choices in regards to their body, such as the decision to have an abortion. Abortion is a choice that is based on individual liberty, and it is a choice that is supported by the expertise of a physician. .
Modern medicine has been enormously successful in saving and extending lives. No one can reasonably deny this, but it exacerbates a problem which has always been an issue, such as how do you treat those patients who are alive, but are not living lives they think are worthwhile, and have no prospects for anything better.
There is a strong case for allowing persons who are facing intractable pain or indignities in the final stages of their lives to determine for themselves when life is no longer worth living, and, where necessary, receive assistance in ending their lives. .
A person should have the right to decide whether or not they want to preserve their life. I believe that Physician Assisted Suicide is also a rational and ethical decision for those who choose to die in order to avoid unbearable suffering. It is ethically justifiable because there is a level of respect for a person's autonomy, recognizing that competent people have a right to choose for themselves the course of their life, including how it will end. Decisions about time and circumstances of death are very personal, and as long a person is viewed as competent, he or she should have right to choose death. This is not very different from competent, terminally ill patients being allowed to hasten death by refusing treatment, which could prolong life. For some patients, the refusal of treatment is not enough to hasten death; their only other option is suicide.
