Physician Assisted Suicide Debate

People are afraid of death. It is this innate fear of the end of life causes our subconscious minds to reel at the idea of hastening its arrival. We can only live until we die, so we live, and we live as long as we possibly can, until we die. When presented in this black and white perspective, suicide is nothing short of a crime against nature, a disgrace to the death-avoiding purpose of human existence. Furthermore, the idea of physician-assisted suicide triggers this response to an even greater degree; we hear assisted suicide, and our subconscious screams murder. Here lies the difficulty in understanding the modern debate over physician-assisted suicide with a clear, open mind. Often, it takes a personal experience, perhaps a suffering family member or friend, to fully understand the weight of the right to assisted suicide, and how humane and merciful the practice truly is for those with terminal
For an unaffected, healthy individual, with death painted as a villain by his subconscious, it is easy to raise a gavel against the legalization of assisted suicide. It is easy for this individual to deny the right to end one’s suffering by citing a variety of aged, insignificant arguments like ancient oaths and biased religious teachings, all in defense of the instinct of his subconscious. However, the debate over assisted suicide is greater than this, and must be considered much more deliberately and meticulously. When one considers justice, autonomy, compassion, and all other necessary factors in the modern assisted suicide debate, it is clear that the practice of physician-assisted suicide is merciful and necessary, and must be a provided right to suffering individuals near the