Assisted suicide, although frowned upon, can be considered a human right.

The right to life is the most fundamental human right as without which, enjoyment of any other right
can be rendered nugatory. Enveloped in such right to life, of course, comes also the discretion of the
person the liberty of what to do with said right and herein comes the concept of autonomy of oneself.
According to said concept, a person has the right to make decisions about his life freely which mirrors
Article 8 of the European Convention of Human Rights which states that:

1. Everyone has the right to respect for his private and family life, his home and his
correspondence.
2. There shall be no interference by a public authority with the exercise of this right except
such as in accordance with the law and is necessary in a democratic society in the interests
of national security, public safety or the economic well-being of the country, for the
prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, or for the protection
of rights and freedoms of others.

As we are in no circumstance to dictate one as to how we intend to live life or to end it; it is already
within the discretion of the person with such inherent right as per the case of Gross v. Switzerland
asking for a lethal dosage of sodium pentobarbital to end her life. Bliss of life may vary from person to
person and it is only truly within the said person can authentic enjoyment of life emanate with that said,
taking of one’s life is not a wrong; it is merely the non-exercise of the most fundamental human right.
Hence, a person asking to be assisted to perform suicide can be a right as long as he has made a
voluntary, clear, settled, and informed decision to die which as may be seen in the video freely decided
by the old man. With the voluntary declaration and of decision of wanting to die, it somehow irons the
line between liberty to die with the state’s duty to protect life.