in Marker 49). If we embrace assisted suicide as medical treatment, it will return our embrace with a death grip that is cold, cruel and anything but compassionate(49).On the other hand, Marcia Angell, executive editor of the New England Journal of Medicine, it should not be a crime for doctors to respect the wishes of terminally ill patients who want assistance in committing suicide. She start of her argument by referring to a Supreme Court decision in which, they found dying patient [sic] have no right to decide for themselves to cut short their suffering by asking their doctors to prescribe an overdose of sleeping pills or painkillers. The court said it is the state legislatures fault for having laws on physician-assisted suicide. So the patient will not have a choice if he or she wants to die unless the state changes the laws. Angell claims that, the Supreme Court missed the point: Dying can be slow and agonizing, and some people simply want to get it over with. The only legal option patients have is if they want their life support shut down. Too bad most patients are not on life support so they can not request it (33-34).Angell has no clue why the legislature would make a patient suffer when he or she does not want to suffer anymore. She goes on pleading that this is the same choice the Supreme Courts allows when people abort their babies and when people get married. Dying patients suffering intractably should have the option of taking and overdose, just as they have the option of turning off life supports argues Angell. Even if the doctor prescribed pills to the patient in most cases would not take them. But, due to the fact, that the patient had the option of taking the pills would make them happy. When the patient thinks the time is right can take the pills in peace (34).Doctors then would have the option, too. No one would be pressured to ask for assisted suicide[or] pressured to refuse life supports(34). The Suprem...
