The thought of killing an innocent person never came across as lawfully moral. However, if the person is terminally ill and asks to be killed, it should be granted. The opposers disagree with the concept of assisted suicide because it is believed to lead to a “slippery slope”, it would be said to target vulnerable victims, and will expand to people who are not even terminally ill. The argument for slippery slope believes it will lead to the abuse of power for physician-assisted suicides. It could be used on the most vulnerable of society such as the uninsured as well as patients who do not have a terminal illness. Elderly and disabled patients have a psychological vulnerability to assisted dying. They see it as a way to off themselves to relieve the burden put on the younger, vital generations (Doerflinger). Patients who also participate in physician-assisted suicides have to go through a thorough examination verifying that they are mentally capable. People who are diagnosed with depression will not be able to request an assisted suicide but rather be treated by a psychiatrist. Though there are very few states allowing the assistance, there have been only 596 accounted deaths over a course of 14 years. Additionally, patients receiving this care are far from vulnerable and were relatively affluent, well-educated, and well-insured, and nearly all were receiving hospice care at the time of their request (Angell). Therefore, the dispute on whether the vulnerable patients in society are targeted can be proven false.Religion is also a huge aspect on why half the population opposes physician-assisted suicide. According to Jewish and Christian worldviews, there is a wrongness in killing an innocent victim, even with their consent. Religions believe that human life is sacred because it is created in the image and likeness of God, and called to fulfillment in the love of God and neighbor. However, with a person with terminal illness, their life is already closing to an end. The victim would prefer to end the unbearable pain that they have been enduring but with assisted suicide being illegal, it is more harm to them (Doerflinger). As stated by Siebold, the Christian Apologetics and Research Ministry (CARM) says, “God is the sovereign Lord who determines the day we die. Therefore, we are not to undermine God’s authority.” Should that apply if the patient is in unbearable pain? Although the sovereign Lord has the power to determine the day we die, does the Lord put into consideration the amount of suffering that the person must bear until the day they die? The Catholic Church also uses its political and campaigning force across this nation to shape the law, limit patient choice and enforce its teachings on all Americans. This however should not be allowed since the U.S. is a religiously diverse country. This year, they led the campaign to nullify the Montana Supreme Court’s decision affirming aid in dying for terminally ill Montanans. Patients should not have to seek approval from the Catholic religion to die peacefully, especially if they are not Catholic themselves (Lee). On the contrary, supporters are not attempting to implement the DWDA to everyone, but it needs to be an accessible option for the terminally ill.Though religion portrays an active role on whether an individual may follow through with assisted suicide, it should not determine when a patient’s suffering will end. If suffering cannot be appeased, should all be forced to live on regardless of the quality of life that confronts us? People should not be confined to live the rest of their short lives being miserable because their state disagrees with assisted suicide. There are reasons for not legalizing assisted-dying, but it is perfectly rational to want to avoid the pain and suffering of a terminal illness. It may seem inhumane, but a person has control over their own body and chose this option (Cartwright). Physician-assisted suicide is well monitored and painless, allowing the patient to leave peacefully and easily. If most American citizens accept the idea of assisted dying, why is it still illegal? 75 percent of voters wanted their families to end life support for them when asked if they had a terminal disease and had the choice of assisted suicide. The only barrier to allowing the act to be legalized are the government officials (Filene 196). That said, the government has no right since most Americans believe a mentally rational, terminally ill patient should be able to have the option of assisted dying with the help of their physician. The Gallup organization has polled this question since 1947 and never found less than a solid majority in favor (Lee). The inference to be drawn from this is that no one has the power to refrain patients from ending their suffering. Likewise, patients who want to relieve themselves of their suffering has the right to do so. People should accept the fact that this might be the only life (if evidence of that exists), so should not it be allowed to live it on our own terms? Everyone has choices and this is the ultimate choice that only that individual can make. There shouldn’t be an outside source having a say in the decision (Siebold). People have the right to live and likewise, should have the right to end it. Health considerations could be a factor, but a person’s will to live is more important. In the Manhattan Federal District Court, three patients and three doctors filed a suit against the state of New York on its ban on assisted suicide. They believed the ban deprived them of their Fourteenth Amendment, the guarantee of personal liberty with due process, and it denied them equal protection because terminally ill patients could ask to stop treatment to die faster but did not have the right to ask a physician to perform treatment to hasten their death. The Declaration of Independence also includes, “the right to have life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness.” The pursuit of happiness can be relieving suffering by assisted dying. This important document goes to support the argument that people have their own life, freedom, and happiness (Doerflinger). It is clear that the United States is a considerably diverse country that holds many different views and that the country was founded on principles that protect people’s rights. Being terminally ill, a patient should have their human rights to do what they want with themselves and be assisted on a suicide. All in all, legalizing assisted suicide should not be forced upon anyone but should be left as an alternate route. The option of physician-assisted suicide is not mandatory for every terminally ill patient nor every physician. It is put out there to give patients an easier way out when there is no hope left. As Marcia Angell states it, “Doctors who believe this do not usually object to withdrawing life-sustaining treatment…This is a form of abandonment, in which doctors prize their self-image above the patient’s needs.” A physician is like any other citizen, they have their own rights and beliefs. Physicians are not forced to carry out the act if they do not want to. However, for the physicians who believe that the act is the right thing to do, they should be allowed to do it legally (Siebold).The Death With Dignity Act never and will never force a patient to choose assisted dying. It is just another option put in place for patients to eliminate their suffering. Patients can die however they want, and pressuring the act upon themselves is never the intention. There are safeguards in place that guarantees that there is no pressure involved. As research by Dutch scientists suggests,”A 2009 summary of research concluded there is no evidence for a higher frequency of euthanasia among the elderly, people with low educational status, the poor, the physically disabled or chronically ill, minors, people with psychiatric illnesses including depression, or racial and ethnic minorities, compared with background population. It was spread diversely to anyone who took this option and was not focused on certain groups”(Gardner). This emphasizes the fact that patients are not always compelled to take this route unless it is truly necessary. The choice of assisted suicide never has to be used by patients nor physicians. “Human choice—the right to make important life decisions—is a part of the liberty and dignity that follow us all our lives, to our deaths. The government in a civilized society, one that protects religious freedom, owes its people no less than that liberty and dignity” (Lee). Physician-assisted suicide is currently not legal in all states so why in a country that symbolizes for freedom ban the act that allows patients the most freedom? This controversial topic splits the nation but should be reconsidered to be legalized because it can give terminally ill patients their last wish. Others disagree with assisted suicide for the mere fact that it challenges their religions and sees it descending into a slippery slope. However, it remains as the right of the individual to end their suffering. It all comes down to the individual and their own personal preferences on wanting assisted suicide as an available option. Oregon’s Death With Dignity Act is paving the way to help guide the rest of the country towards more freedom. Every life on earth is irreplaceable and valuable, but when that life is coming to a close, a person should be allowed more control over what happens so that these decisions indeed remain with each individual.