that leaving the option regarding death up to the individual respects their right of independence.
             The United States prides itself on its system of democracy in which people are granted specific rights and protected from violations of these rights by the government. Part of this pride may also be attributed to the system of justice that has been established under which "all people are created equal." If this is the case, justice involves the allowance of a suffering person to decide to end their life. Physician-assisted suicide is no different than speeding up death by treatment refusal, and since treatment refusal can be a long, painful experience or even ineffective in some cases, PAS is a much more compassionate way to end one's agony.
             The effects of suffering include more than just physical pain; there are psychological aspects as well, which can be more detrimental than the physical ones. Physician-assisted suicide supporters feel as though relieving a person of these afflictions is far more considerate of the person's well being. Allowing their life to continue would be like a merciless punishment that they, in no way, deserve. While our medical advancements have come a long way, it remains impossible to relieve all types of pain and suffering, so PAS is simply another alternative.
             Physician-assisted suicide holds the interest of the patient in the highest regard. Since our laws in the United States are based on the interest of the state versus the individual, in the controversy regarding PAS, its supporters feel the individual's rights far outweigh those of the state. Prohibiting assisted death in all cases, under all circumstances greatly restricts the person's liberty, which is supposed to be guaranteed by our Constitution.
             The relationship between a physician and a patient, especially one who is terminally ill, is crucial and the ban on PAS inhibits open discussion pertaining to ...