The controversy behind physician assisted suicide is one that has been of large debate over many years. Numerous studies indicate that depression is one of the most commonly encountered psychiatric illnesses in primary care settings. Yet, depression consistently goes undetected and undiagnosed by non psychiatrically trained primary care physicians. Noting the well-studied link between depression and suicide, it is necessary to question giving sole responsibility of assisting patients in making end of life treatment decisions to these physicians. .
In my opinion I see nothing wrong with physician assisted suicide when the person is dying of an illness and has a low quality of life. Depression can be treated and there is no reason why suicide should even be brought up in such a condition. In a number of cases, people with terminal illnesses are seeking to end their lives with the aid of a physician. Many such people suffer from hopeless conditions of increasing debilitation, sometimes accompanied by periods of excruciating pain. .
It was inevitable that circumstances of this kind would raise constitutional questions. In many cases people have turned the "right to die" or, more precisely, the right to physician-assisted suicide, into the next great arena for the struggle to define the scope of fundamental rights under the Due Process Clause. .
Ultimately, euthanasia as it is also called is a question of choice, empowering people to have control over their own bodies. As of March of 1999, unless a person lives in Colombia, Japan, the Netherlands or the state of Oregon, the only lawful option is to remain alive, sometimes in intractable pain, until their body finally collapses. .
People that are terminally ill or in positions which there quality of life has been diminished should have the right to a physician assisted suicide if chose. Legally it violates constitutional rights and morally it should not be thought as being right to let people go on suffering if proper treatment can not be given.