Physician-assisted suicide presents one of the greatest dilemmas tothe medical profession.
mentally competent, but deemed terminally ill, be allowed to engagein physician-assisted suicide? According to the.
First Amendment of The Constitution of The United States, "one hasthe freedom to petition the government for a.
redress of grievances." The Fourteenth Amendment states, "The Statecannot deprive any person of life, liberty or.
property, without due process of law; nor deny any person within itsjurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." The.
group believes that a terminally ill patient has the Constitutionalright to decide whether or not to end his or her life with.
the help of a licensed medical doctor. There have been many cases overthe years where a terminally ill patient who is.
mentally competent has made the choice to either partake in physician-assistedsuicide or euthanasia.
"Physician-assisted suicide occurs when the physician provides thepatient with the means and/or knowledge to.
commit suicide"(Death and Dying,91). "Euthanasia is when the physicianadministers the death causing drug or.
agent"(Death and Dying,92). The most recent case is that of The Stateof Florida v. Charles Hall. "Charles Hall is.
dying of AIDS and challenged the State of Florida to let him die bya self-administered lethal injection without fear of.
prosecution"(http://www.rights.org/ deathnet/open.html). On January31, 1997, a Judge ruled that Charles Hall could.
take his own life with the aid of a doctor. Senior Judge S. JosephDavis, brought in from Seminole County, "found that.
Florida's strict privacy law and the equal protection clause in theU.S. Constitution entitled Hall, 35, and Dr. McIver.
to carry out an assisted death without fear of prosecution" (Sun-Sentinel,1A). On February 11, 1997, Charles Hall's.
ruling was overturned by the Florida Supreme Court: he no longer hasthe right to end his own life. He will have to.
wait until May 9, 1997 until new arguments will be heard.
