[freedumb2003]

This is always a difficult issue for me.

I think the right to end one’s own tread upon this mortal coil is an absolute right — it 100% up the the individual and the State has no right to interfere with that decision. Anyone who says other is merely a statist demanding their personal moral code be forced upon others, limiting freedom in an almost infinite manner.

The slippery slope begins when it goes from being a personal option to an obligation (a’la eskimos mythos, Logan’s Run or Soylent Green).

So long as a human draws breath and is clear on his/her intentions, the State should stay the hell out of end-life decisions: one way or the other.

[ez]

Once you accept that a person has the right to decide to end their own life, you open the door to others’ deciding that the person in question is too deluded or politically incorrect to make the right decision.

[Gondring]

So long as a human draws breath and is clear on his/her intentions, the State should stay the hell out of end-life decisions: one way or the other.

You're exactly right, but you're gonna upset the big-government nanny-state libs here. You can tell them by the way they don't care about individuals or their rights, preferences, or decisions ...they just lump together "lives" in an abstract way and proclaim that they know better than the people themselves. Oh, and if you can't do something for yourself, then you're out of luck, as far as they're concerned.

While I recognize the "obligation because of societal pressure" idea, I'm starting to question even that. We recognize a person's free will even if he's under pressure. Societal pressure doesn't mean a person must buy an iPhone. Societal pressure doesn't mean a person can't make personal decisions.

[AustinBill]

The question is not remotely difficult. If someone truly wishes to off themselves they'll find a way no matter what we do. The problem with "assistance" is that most people do not wish to die and the "assistance" is really a matter of coercion to one degree or another. You don't allow the State to enter the arena because the only power the State has is the power of coercion, so that's the only result you'll get from any State involvement in any question.

The Statists love to use straw-man cases. The argument is always that because it is possible that some theoretical one-in-a-million soul might benefit all should come under the heel of some new "beneficent" policy, regardless of the obvious harms which will befall rights and liberties of the 999,999-in-a-million others.