Choosing death… a question of humanity, humility and most significantly dignity. In the face of terminal pain, you have to consider the rights as a human being to end a carousel of torture, but seemingly in most cultures the decision is being made by people who have little to no experience in what could be considered an elongated form of punishment. The entire philosophy of medical health care, of course, is to prolong life and treat patients on a journey to wellness. But when the aspirations of medical science fall short of these tragic independent cases, then surely the decision rests with the individual. This of course should hinge upon the dependent themselves regarding the state of their mental capacity to make such a monumental decision. ‘As the average life expectancy has increased, so too have the rates of debilitating chronic illness – particularly coronary artery disease and cancers’ (Yach, 2014) and although the healthcare system with its broad range of medical facilities and approaches to medicine, continue to adapt to the evolutionary landscape of medicine and disease, debate now hinges upon what could be considered the kindest outcome. With euthanasia having to be administered by health professionals, forming the antithesis of their role within our societies, criminal prosecution should not be a thought in the process. If there is underlying evidence that an individual is to beat the illness that consumes them, then yes, medical professions should certainly advise against it and provide the necessary support provision to make a patient most comfortable in their recovery. But in the tragic event of this being an impossibility, surely the route of assisted suicide is the kindest action. If for example, a dog or a cat, euthanasia is quite readily administered to end suffering and as a collective we perceive this as a representation of goodwill and symbolic of our affection not to allow suffering. Animal kingdom and human being debate aside, why do we see this as reprehensible and discreditable when considering the issue of a merciful option? Yach D, Hawkes C, Linn Gould C, Hofman K. The global burden of chronic diseases: overcoming impediments to prevention and control. J Am Med Assoc. 2004;291(21):2616–2622. doi: 10.1001/jama.291.21.2616. doi:10.1001/jama.291.21.2616.

Discounting all the religious arguments, there are so many against assisted suicide that need dealing with: It would weaken society's respect for the value and importance of human life Proper palliative care is available which reduces or removes the need for people to be in pain It would lead to worse care for the terminally ill It would put too much power in the hands of doctors, and damage the trust between patient and doctor Some people may feel pressured to request euthanasia by family, friends or doctors, when it isn't what they really want It would undermine the commitment of doctors and nurses to save lives It would discourage the search for new cures and treatments for the terminally ill Some people unexpectedly recover Some people may change their mind about euthanasia and be unable to tell anyone Voluntary euthanasia could be the first step on a slippery slope that leads to involuntary euthanasia, where those who are undesirable or seen as a problem could be killed https://www.bbc.co.uk/bitesize/guides/zynv87h/revision/3

I completely understand your opinion and agree with some of the comments. However, my issue is how do you assess if one is completely mentally stable to make such a decision as ending their own life? What if they made their decision based purely on temporary emotion, which they may have later changed their mind? What if they go against the odds and actually live longer than what they were supposed to? Also, the issue of the emotional turmoil that this would leave for the family / friends of the person. A family member having to watch someone die from their own will instead of natural causes seems like a much more traumatic experience, one which could potentially stay with them forever.

Depends heavily on the situation. If a mentally unstable person having a depressive or psychotic episode wants medically assisted suicide, someone who could very well change their mind with assistance of medication and/or therapy, they really shouldn't be allowed as they aren't in the right frame of mind to make that choice. However, if an person with a terminal illness whose suffering would only continue to get worse the longer they lived, until they would eventually die a slow and painful death, would anesthesia not be a better option?

It is obvious that most people would like to die without pain and with dignity, rather than lying on their deathbed suffering from great pain and incontinence.

**Family and friends should be able to support someone's decision for suicide if all over peaceful and life-prolonging methods of help have been tried and have failed.** - It may not be a law, but I thing assisted suicide should be considered for certain cases. - A board or something similar should be ab le to grant assisted suicide if it is needed and wanted. It is unfair and somewhat cruel to keep someone in a painful and shattered life. For instance if they have a chronic disease or suffer with serious injuries or if they are mentally struggling. - If all help has been given, if all peaceful and medical routes have been explored, it seems better that family and friends can be supportive and present for a loved ones death. This is rather than the shock and horrifying moment that may occur to loved ones if a person commits suicide alone.