Right to life. What normally comes to mind when you hear that phrase for a vast majority of individuals this phrase means that you have the ability to live your life however you please to put it in the simplest of terms. Today in society there are so many individuals willing to instantly criticize someone else for wanting to engage in physician assisted suicide rather than actually attempt to understand why that individual is choosing to end their life with the topic of physician-assisted suicide there are prolific amount of individuals that used to make the argument that this method in general should be declared as unconstitutional however, the one thing in which these individuals have to do is find the legal evidence that explicitly proves that the method of physician-assisted suicide is illegal. Exactly what makes the right-to-die any different than the right to life? Is it due to the fact that one right allows you to continue to live without any of your own rights being infringed upon and one literally gives you the ability to end your own life. Regardless of the decision the individual makes where there's right to life or right to that they should be the sole proprietor and making it it is their right it is their life and no one else is at stake. I am completely aware that you do not have the authority to impede on an individual's natural rights, no one does. However the constitutionality of this matter has been brought up to the Supreme Court's attention several times in the past and while the Supreme Court did address the issue, I personally feel that they failed to make any type of distinction between the guidelines and the extent of physician-assisted suicide. Due to the fact that, that the Supreme Court was incapable of establishing a decision in which the entire nation would be bind by rule of law to abide by they simply decided to just allocate the power of determining the constitutionality of the decision of engaging in physician-assisted suicide to the states. In 1994 Oregon, established a legal document known as the Death with Dignity Act, in which outlined the requirements and reasonings necessary for an individual to engage in physician-assisted suicide which is still in effect today. Over the course of time Oregon witnesses that they started to notice suicide rates in general decline and that although the act did provide the circumstances on which an individual would be allowed to engage in physician-assisted suicide there still weren't a high amount of people doing it. As the president, I do not wish for you to make any type of distinction between right to life or right to die. However, I would truly desire that you take into consideration if the government in general is depriving a citizen of life by depriving them the right to die? If you answer yes to this question, than this action alone would be considered as unconstitutional and therefore should be reanalyzed by the Supreme Court.Thank you for your time.