Physician-assisted suicide presents one of the greatest dilemmas tothe medical profession. Should someone who ismentally competent, but deemed terminally ill, be allowed to engagein physician-assisted suicide? According to theFirst Amendment of The Constitution of The United States, “one hasthe freedom to petition the government for aredress of grievances.“ The Fourteenth Amendment states, “The Statecannot deprive any person of life, liberty orproperty, without due process of law; nor deny any person within itsjurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.“ Thegroup believes that a terminally ill patient has the Constitutionalright to decide whether or not to end his or her life withthe help of a licensed medical doctor. There have been many cases overthe years where a terminally ill patient who ismentally 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 tocommit suicide”(Death and Dying,91). “Euthanasia is when the physicianadministers the death causing drug oragent”(Death and Dying,92). The most recent case is that of The Stateof Florida v. Charles Hall. “Charles Hall isdying of AIDS and challenged the State of Florida to let him die bya self-administered lethal injection without fear ofprosecution”(http://www.rights.org/ deathnet/open.html). On January31, 1997, a Judge ruled that Charles Hall couldtake his own life with the aid of a doctor. Senior Judge S. JosephDavis, brought in from Seminole County, “found thatFlorida’s strict privacy law and the equal protection clause in theU.S. Constitution entitled Hall, 35, and Dr. McIverto carry out an assisted death without fear of prosecution” (Sun-Sentinel,1A). On February 11, 1997, Charles Hall’sruling was overturned by the Florida Supreme Court: he no longer...
