In recent years, a great deal of public debate has swelled over the issue of euthanasia, also known as physician assisted suicide. Although the argument on both sides offer valid points, it is absolutely crucial that all human beings be entitled the essential right to be painlessly and safely relieved of suffering caused by diseases and other painful terminal conditions. Persons experiencing constant pain and misery as a result of health issues must be allowed the right to die with dignity if they so choose. In a society such as ours that is very concerned with issues of autonomy and personal rights and guarantees and is quick to make heated argument on both sides, there is no reason why our freedom to choose should end at the right to die a peaceful death if a medical situation is hopeless and causing unending pain and suffering.

While the those who oppose euthanasia or assisted suicide and make the argument that the right of those suffering to have access to euthanasia or physician-assisted suicide contend that allowing such freedoms will lead to wholesale slaughter of persons society deems “unwanted” and offers other more speculative and ethereal reasons to prevent this right from being granted, persons with painful terminal conditions are being kept alive against their will. As this argument in favor of euthanasia suggests, however, as a sign of respect for personal freedom and of one’s right to be relieved of hopeless medical conditions where death is guaranteed and pain is constant, the speculation should be overlooked in favor of those who are suffering and do not have recourse. In other words, by making the argument that not allowing the right for a person to have access to this solution of a safer more humane suicide that is safer and better for ending one’s life, the state is effectively making it impossible for a person to die with dignity and thus they are doing a great disservice to those suffering with no other recourse to end the great pain of their condition without undue suffering on the part of family members or themselves.

Cancer, advanced cases of AIDS, and other terminal conditions often are incredibly painful and enduring. Patients suffering from such illnesses can often survive for long periods of time because of advanced treatments but often, the treatments themselves are crippling. Some who suffer from such terminal conditions have the right to make the argument that they should be able to choose assisted suicide as not to put themselves through such pain and instead cope with their illness at home. No matter what the case, the point remains that these are people who are suffering and who do not see a light at the end of the tunnel—they know that death is imminent and they often are reasonably certain that until that moment comes, the remainder of their time will be spent being in pain and putting their families through pain as well.

According to one study that poses a similar argument about assisted suicide or euthanasia, “About two-thirds of oncology patients and the public found euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide acceptable for patients with unremitting pain… More than a quarter of oncology patients had seriously thought about euthanasia or physician-assisted suicide and nearly 12 percent seriously discussed these interventions with physicians and others” (Emanuel 1807). Given such results, it is clear that the people who matter the most in this debate, those who are in great unending pain seeking relief, should have their needs addressed. Given the fact that many of them see a need for a right to die with dignity and not prolong agony for themselves and their family members, there should be no reason why these wishes should not be respected.