Introduction Physician-assisted suicide is a hot topic that has managed to stir up heated debates over the years. Two sides have emerged due to this, the people who support it and those who are against it. This has led to a number of states legalizing it while other states are still not up for the idea. The central issue this report aims to respond and debate about is the main question posed whenever this issue is raised. The question is should physician-assisted suicide be legal? Physician-assisted suicide is being considered the best choice in cases where prolonging a patient’s life will only prolong suffering, as a result of poor medical condition and its effects (Balkin,2005). New life prolongation techniques and practices have been developed and improved due to medical advancements. Some of these methods go to extreme boundaries to keep people alive. This is one of the roots behind this dilemma. Various methods that are geared towards the smooth facilitation of this practice have also been developed. These methods are fast and painless and are aimed at making this process as easy as possible. Questions that have been raised now and again which act as a pivotal point for most of these arguments are mentioned below. ‘How much should a person suffer before the plug is pulled?’.’ should doctors be allowed to terminate a patient’s life?’, and ‘Is a doctor’s help to end one’s life under these circumstances really suicide?’ and ‘should a person be left to decide his or her own fate?’ Above are some of the questions that have led to the drive to reevaluate the preexisting rules (Engadhi, 2009). This report aims at supporting the need for Physician-assisted suicide. This is done through carefully analyzing and backing the value of the right of the patient to self-determination. At the same time, there is also the matter of looking at a counter argument that opposes my point of view, which is that people think of this form of relief when they are in tremendous pain and depression and if these two elements are dealt with the option of physician-assisted suicide will not be considered (Roleff, 1998). Patient’s right to self-determination In the article the argument is because it is the patient’s choice over if they want to die or not because of bad medical condition. The patient is the one to be in charge. This is obviously, because the patient is the one who is in that situation, not the doctor or the state. The patient can have a number of reasons that may in the end lead to this decision. This may include: The patient may be in immense pain and this anguish may go on for a very long period. In some cases, the patient may be forced to grapple with the pain for a very long period even if the doctors are sure that the chances of the pain going away are minimal to none. With this in mind, it is not valid for the government or anyone else to decide how long one is to suffer when there is a solution to the problem. This case has been termed as the mercy argument as it is the only reprieve a patient gets and this finally gives them a chance to end the pain and suffering. The costs and medical bills realized from trying to keep a patient in this condition are very high. Despite that, the facts that the person may neve