There is a certain class of people for which discussion of the topic of physician assisted suicide is typically directed towards. These people are usually in extremely poor condition or experiencing an intense amount of hardship. Of course those who are discussed have a desire for the state of death otherwise it would be immoral to force that state upon them. However, the topic itself is still controversial for medley of reasons. One of them being the conflict which arises between the role of the doctor his motivations. One could say that the doctor is simply relieving pain, while the consequentialist could view the situation as killing. Or we could say that the death was foreseen, but not intended, whatever that means. Assisting a patient into the realm of death could also be looked at as violating the Hippocratic oath. Regardless of how much debate there is on whether or not physician assisted suicide should be allowed, the solution must be logically consistent. If we are to say that the patients who deserve physician assisted suicide must possess certain qualities we must decide on what those qualities are. If a patient who meets the criteria for physician assisted suicide should be allowed to have it, anybody else who also meets those same criteria should be allowed access to physician assisted suicide.
Typically the cases in which discussion of this topic arises the patient is in a state which we would consider extremely undesirable. The Ted case, Terri Schiavo, and others are examples of cases where the topic of physician assisted suicide arises. This is because they met the criteria which is necessary before the discussion even arises. I am proposing two criteria which meets and encompasses all cases. The first one is a desire to die and the second one is being in a terminal illness. In the Ted case, he definitely had a desire to die as documented by Dr. Kevorkian and he had a terminal illness. In the Schiavo case, she was unresponsive and in a vegetative state, so we don't know if she had a desire to die or not, but she was in a state so undesirable that the decision to kill her was made. It was assumed that she would have had this desire for death if she had known about her condition. The undesirability of her state was enough to be considered equivalent to a terminal illness. Thus, it is quite clear that the criteria is sufficient to describe cases that physician assisted suicide should be considered.
Physician assisted suicide is violation of biblical law. In the old testament one of the ten laws, through direct communication with god, was thou shalt not kill. There are other reasons why physician assisted suicide is controversial, I am not arguing in favor of physician assisted suicide. Only that if we allow physician assisted suicide for those who meet the criteria for allowing physician suicide, it should be allowed for all people who meet those same criteria in the spirit of maintaining logical consistency. We have established that the criteria is a desire for death and a terminal illness. This covers controversial cases very well, because in most controversial cases of PAS the patient definitely posses a desire for death and has a condition that may or may not be terminal, but is very undesirable. In fact, recently a group of people are in legal trouble because they helped a man commit suicide who had a desire for death and cancer, but was not in a terminal state. My elaboration of the distinction would clear up all of these situations and vindicate the group of men trying to help the suicidal man. The desire for death is necessary as is the terminal illness for PAS to be allowed. The thing that most people are missing is that life is a terminal illness.
We don't ask for it. It was a state placed on me outside of my own autonomy. Nobody wishes for cancer, nor life. Without it, I could not have death. Terminal implies death. Illness implies suffering. Well what is life if not suffering? The constant pushing a boulder up a hill only to see it roll down again. The absurdity of existence is this not an illness? Illnesses lead to death. Will existence not lead to my death? The constant struggles of nothingness day to day. Of nothingness and for nothingness for it is to nothingness which we return. Unless the soul is immortal of course, but even if that is the case the conscious part which I deem myself goes to nothingness, leaving only the essence, or perhaps nothing. Thus all people who meet the criteria for access to PAS, desire for death and a terminal illness, if we allow it at all, should have access to it.
A desire for death is an interesting phenomena. Many people, if not most people, experience it at one point in their lives. This is because life itself can be quite tumultuous. Of course it can be filled with beauty and euphoric experiences, but the converse is true. Life can be difficult. Limbs may be lost, relationships butchered, children slain, perpetual starvation, and coffee spilled on pants. For some the loss of both hearing and eyesight is enough to bring upon the desire for death, coffee on the pants may do the same thing, but to a lesser extent and temporarily. The same thing goes for the death of a relationship, it may bring upon desire for death, clearly exemplified by the number of suicides which are caused by divorces or breakups each year. Thus clearly it is necessary to distinguish between those whose desire for death is temporary and those whose desire for death is sincere. Obviously we want to avoid helping one into a state of death who after a brief period of time would no longer desire that state. However, for those whose desire for death is triggered by a life event, who even after a long waiting period and psychological counseling still desire death, those people should be given access to PAS. Why? Simply because they meet the criteria.
Physician assisted suicide is one way to deal with the impending death which we all face. It seems that we view it as more philosophically controversial than shooting oneself in the head. Shooting oneself in the head is view as immoral by the mainstream of deontologists and consequentialists alike. I doubt the controversy will ever be resolved in the case of PAS due to the irrational grip judeo-christianity has on our world. Regardless if PAS ever becomes closer to the mainstream to the point where it becomes common place, then everybody who meets the criteria should be allowed access. A desire for death and a terminal illness, and a period of psychological counseling should be sufficient to allow one to have a physician be his personal Charon.