Medically assisted suicide for critical ill patients is one of the major debates in the public sphere due to the ethical, moral, legal, and religious complexities surrounding the issue. Medically assisted suicide involves termination or withdrawal of critical medical support with an aim of allowing the patient to die. Termination and withdraw of life support for critical ill patients mainly encompass withdrawing important medical interventions with an informed expectation that the patient will not recover even if the medical interventions are continued (McDougall and Gorman, 2008). This means that continued medical support in such cases is considered as a waste of time and resources and the best strategy is to terminate them altogether. Proponents of medically assisted suicide for critically ill patients argue that it reaches point where the patient cannot improve from medical services and therefore there is no need to continue using services On the other hand, opponents argues that there is no one who has the right to determine when a person medical care should be terminated because no one has authority over the life of another person. In the United States, the issue of medically assisted suicide has been controversial in social and legal realm since the Quinlan case (Whiting, 2002). There are a number of court rulings which have upheld the right of the patient and their caretakers to determine whether to continue or not continue with care and hence get medical assisted suicide. Considering the fact that continued stay of the patient in a hospital will increase the cost of care and occupy space that could be used to assist other patients, it is only logical that medically assisted suicide should be allowed when patient or their caretakers are willing to.