Physician-assisted suicide presents one of the greatest dilemmas tothe medical profession. Should someone who is
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 Fl...