The call for physician-assisted suicide comes in an era when life can be prolonged by medical technology. By relying upon machines for their survival, the power of the dying patients has been wrested away from them (Kass and Lund, 1996, p. 21). In the United States, many old people receive futile treatments that have no effect other than prolonging their existence, without improving the quality of life ("Last rights," 1997, p. 24).

Physician-assisted suicide is not an option to be used wantonly. Patients who suffer from severely deteriorating diseases with no likely prospect of recovery should have the right to get help from their physicians to terminate their lives by choice. These people suffer from diseases such as multiple sclerosis, end-stage lung disease, advanced brain cancer, etc. For many of them, hospice care does not alleviate their suffering. Not only do they suffer from unbearable pain, th

Campbell, C. S. (1999, May 5). Give me liberty and death: Assisted suicide in Oregon. The Christian Century, 116(14), 498-499.

Kass, L.R., Lund, N. (1996, December). Courting death: assisted suicide, doctors, and the law. Commentary, 102(6), 17-28.

By examining the details of the Oregon Death with Dignity Act (DDA), it can be demonstrated clearly that legalizing physician-assisted suicide will address the increasing demand of dying patients in a safe and regulated atmosphere. The act was formulated to serve three objectives and three groups of people: 1) Offer terminally ill people the right to die in a "human and dignified" fashion by ingesting lethal pills prescribed by a physician; 2) protect physicians from professional and legal prosecution for their involvement in the deaths of their patients; and 3) to guarantee that the practice will be regulated and accountable to the public (Campbell, 1999, p. 498).

Even though medical ethicists oppose the idea of physician-assisted suicide, it is practiced legally and illegally all over the world. Legalizing it will obliterate the meaningless fine line critics draw between active and passive euthanasia. By 1991, 28 states had ruled that patients can refuse life-sustaining treatment. There is little difference in the end-result between a physician pulling the plug on a machine (passive) or injecting a lethal dose into a patient's arm (active)(McCord, 1993, p. 26). Both require an active measure that results in the patient's death. They should both be considered forms of physician-assisted suicide (Hall, 1994, p. 10). Therefore, it is hypocritical for society to accept one form of physician-assisted suicide and not the other.

(1997, June 21). Last rights. The Economist, 343(8022), 21-25.

In this act, the rights and the roles of the patients and the physicians are spelled out clearly. Terminally-ill patients include patie