The morality of Physician Assisted Suicide has been in question in the United States since the late 19th Century. There are so many sides to this issue that make it extremely difficult to draw a line between when Physician Assisted Suicide is morally right and when it is morally wrong. When it seems like it would be right for one person, another person would be completely against it. Physician Assisted Suicide is likely to remain a controversial issue for years to come because of the variety of moral and immoral concerns of many different people.
             Proponents of Physician Assisted Suicide (PAS) present an incredible amount of moral arguments in favor of legalizing PAS and Euthanasia. One of the arguments posed by James Rachels is known as the Equivalency Thesis. This view is held by many people, and consists of the belief that killing someone (active euthanasia) is no worse than letting someone die (passive euthanasia) when there is no other way to reduce the patients pain. In the end, the result is going to be the same, but if there is a way to alleviate a person's suffering a couple days early, Rachels believes that people should advocate active euthanasia (Munson 213-214). According to Rachels, in many circumstances active euthanasia is more humane because it does allow for suffering to be brought to an end quickly and painlessly.
             Another moral argument of PAS is centered on the fact that a person has a right to decide for himself what happens to his body. This right is known as Self-Determination, and is extremely valuable because it allows people to live in accordance with their own perception of a good life. There are many rational people who cannot bear to live a life of pain and suffering; self-determination gives these people the right to exercise complete control over their bodies and take responsibility for their own lives (Weir, 89). Therefore, if a patient is greatly suffering, but still competent and choos...