The arguments expressed by supporters of the legalization of physician-assisted suicide (PAS), in no way stand up to the rigor necessary in a legal debate and should therefore be completely rejected. English law as it currently stands reflects my position and, although the practice is illegal, I will provide an informed alternative that the current UK Government can adopt to address this issue1. This essay is about evaluating the two strongest arguments in support of legalization and the two strongest arguments against legalization. Before delving into the arguments, I will provide some background on this controversial debate and also set the general context of this essay. Each argument will be critically analyzed and counterarguments will be put forward. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on "Why Violent Video Games Shouldn't Be Banned"? Get an original essay Under British law, practicing PAS is punishable by imprisonment behind bars for up to fourteen years2. For over two centuries the morality of PAS has been debated in academic circles. However, over the last century the debate has become more evident as physicians' jurisdiction over medical decision-making has come under scrutiny and, in times of financial depression,3 interest in PAS reflects the reality that many people in Western society they feel entitled to die in a "decent way." The debate about dying with a sense of grandeur has become somewhat dichotomized. On the one hand there are those who argue that PAS should be legalised, on the other there are those who argue that palliative care is the ethical answer to the care of the dying. The debate can be described as a regrettable dilemma for which there will never be a direct answer that satisfies everyone. The terminology should be clarified from the beginning when talking about the legalization of PAS. A doctor who helps a patient to commit suicide by providing lethal doses of drugs for personal use, upon that person's willing and capable request, then he or she is practicing physician-assisted suicide. Respect for patient autonomy is one of the most important philosophical arguments used by supporters of the legalization of PAS. In Western society, autonomy is an imperative value and should not be overlooked. There are four fundamental principles of bioethics: justice, non-maleficence and autonomy5. Autonomy is the main ethical consideration underlying informed consent. For informed consent, patients rely on the information provided by their doctor. This right to autonomy or “self-determination” is considered one of the most important and fundamental rights of the patient. This is the right to direct the medical treatment a patient chooses or refuses. The Belmont Report states that “respect for persons… is divided into two distinct moral demands: the need to recognize autonomy and the need to protect those with reduced autonomy”6. It is a fundamental duty for doctors to maintain their autonomy when interacting with patients. Lawyers and philosophers have postulated that PAS should coexist with hospice and palliative care and that a terminally ill patient who is not entitled to the option of PAS has had his right to autonomy violated. Callahan D had stated that in bioethics autonomy occupies a place "at the top of the moral mountain" 8. In 2015 the Supreme Court decided to establish that the right to autonomous treatment is enshrined in common law. In this case, the appellant gave birth and, following complications during childbirth, her son who was taken care ofits case during pregnancy and labor. The plaintiff sought compensation for damages from the doctor who handled her case during her pregnancy and labor. The appellant claimed damages from the doctor who dealt with her case during the pregnancy and the appellant claimed that5 her son's injuries were attributable, in particular, to the doctor's failure to advise him on the risks caused by the conditions of his son. The Supreme Court stated: “An adult person of sound mind has the right to decide which of the available forms of treatment to undergo, and his consent must be obtained before treatment which interferes with his physical integrity is undertaken. The doctor therefore has a duty to take reasonable care to ensure that the patient is aware of any material risks involved in any recommended treatment and of any reasonable alternative or variant treatments” 9. This means that if PAS is available as a treatment choice, then it is the doctor's duty to advise and the patient's right to decide. The patient has the right to decide what is best for him and her and his decisions must be respected. Another case involves Noel Conway, a 67-year-old retired university professor. He was diagnosed with amyotrophic lateral sclerosis, a form of motor neuron disease (9). According to the Guardian newspaper, Conway said that “the current law means that I will have no control over how my life ends and that I will have to endure this nightmare for as long as necessary. As someone who has always been in control of their life and taken responsibility for themselves, I find this completely unacceptable. I want to change the law to allow assisted dying so I can have control over my own death” (10) . Noel Conway and many others like him have tried to convince the courts that they should be allowed to have control. When you look at the cases and their settings, it is difficult to disagree with them. Of all the justifications for the legalization of doctor-assisted suicide, the relief of pain and suffering, is one of the most agreed upon and publicly supported methods. Pain is the main reason patients seek medical attention, but it is routinely undertreated. The International Association for the Study of Pain defines the term pain as an “unpleasant sensory and emotional experience associated with actual or potential tissue damage, or described in terms of such damage” (13). There was an experiment that showed that pain is undertreated, but it also told us that a significant percentage of doctors favor PAS for reasons of unrelenting pain. 3,299 oncologists who are members of the American Society of Clinical Oncology participated in the experiment. 22.5% of those same oncologists favored physician-assisted suicide for a terminally ill patient with prostate cancer who had unremitting pain despite optimal pain management (14). Another experiment was conducted in the Netherlands to answer the question: How many people will have relief from unnecessary pain and suffering? The experiment was based on two factors, firstly, the proportion of all deceased who would opt for euthanasia or PAS and, secondly, the proportion who would do so for reasons of unremitting pain. For factor 1, according to the most recent data. Approximately 2.4% of all Dutch decedents had a distinct death process, were competent to request euthanasia or PAS, and died by euthanasia or PAS (15). Factor 2 According to these same data, only in one third of cases did pain play a role in the patient's decision to resort to euthanasia or PAS. Pain was the only or the (0,027%)..