Since perception differs from individual to individual and capabilities of sensing develop on different levels, and, since they are internal processes of giving sense to external phenomena, all external labels, definitions, moralities, and ethics are not individual. Rather, they are social constructs which emerge from a general consensus of the majority in order to make communication between individuals possible. Moral, ethic, and legal issues, of which physician assisted euthanasia is one, do not exist in nor are evolved through a solitary or vacuum dynamic. Society is a living, breathing, evolving phenomenon, since humans are the same and form societies. Therefore, all of our morals, ethics and legal issues are living, breathing, evolving phenomena that assume new shapes and discard old ones as humans develop. Without humans extrapolating morals, ethics or laws onto society, they would not exist. Bottom line, this means these phenomena are capable of being changed by the collective will of the society which creates them. With physician assisted suicide, the time has come to decide whether or not individuals who are terminally ill have a right to choose the time and manner of their death. Perhaps only abortion ethics create such a controversy being similar in nature to this matter of choosing life or choosing death. Both involve morals, ethics, and legislation that are created by society but affect an individual’s right to make decisions governing their own body. While the issues surrounding physician assisted suicide are complex, the time has come to liken the issue to abortion and Roe v. Wade from a legal standpoint. The US Constitution affords all Americans the right to property, and the human body must be defined as the property of the individual, not the state’s, religious leaders’, or conservative right’s. If humanity is involved in the decision, and religious myths for their own sake are left out, few can ho...