I would not presume to know what the purpose of suicide is.  I am also in agreement with loveandpolitics.  I support assisted suicide, if that's what a person wants.  It is not be up to me to say whether or not the reason is justifiable, for someone else.  The Supreme Court actually did something amazing by keeping this at the State level.  That's the way it should be.  We don't need all this "government".

I think the problem people have with suicide is how it's defined.  If it were defined differently, the issue would be framed in a totally different manner.

Right now, euthanasia is separated into two categories -- passive and active.  Passive is where the person is dying, and we facilitate the process by pulling the plug on the life support or machine.  Active is where the person is not imminently at death's door, but we inject something to make them die.

In my opinion, there is nothing wrong with passive euthanasia, other than how it has been named.  (Euthanasia gives people the heeby-jeebies no matter what it actually is.)  This type of death is not actually doctor assisted.  In a different century, without any life support, this person would have long been dead.  This should not be considered "doctor-assisted suicide" but rather without doctor assistance.  The doctors are not actively making these people die.

Contrast this situation with active euthanasia where something is actively given to the patient to make them die.  This, I believe, should not be legal.  Yet, it has been approved by the state of Oregon (with conditions).

On the other hand, suicide is going to happen whether or not government is involved.  Doctor-assisted suicide is usually done in cases where patients are in pain and are within 6 months of dying anyway.  In these cases, it has been shown that nobody wants to die that were not already going to die.

Coming from more of a libertarian view point, I don't see what's wrong with the legalization of euthanasia. I disagree with the recent Supreme Court ruling, for constitutional reasons, but I don't think I have a moral problem with Oregon's law.

"Contrast this situation with active euthanasia where something is actively given to the patient to make them die.  This, I believe, should not be legal.  Yet, it has been approved by the state of Oregon (with conditions)."

Why shouldn't it be legal? Why is it the government's right to decide if you should stay alive against your will?

The purpose of is peace by finally removing yourself from the world.

Murder is the of a human being.  is the of one's self, a human being.  looks like it is a form of and is immoral. 

Suicide is illegal.  Doctor assisted should not be an exception.

The Purpose: To End one's life.

Morally right? Not if Morality is do no harm. While harm to self is arguable whether it is harm or not (especially when like me, you do not believe in hell or sins) it will in fact harm others. However, it is forgiveable and understandable.

Should it be legal? While it is harmful, it is something that can be come to terms with. And I say it's a persons choice (especially when the harm it does to others is based more on the others) and it should be an option. If you can't continue on, why should you be forced to? It's totally up to the person. I just hope they put enough thought into the decision.

The Supreme court made the decision to, well, let people make up their own minds and simply stay uninvolved. Many people think this is "legal suicide" when the idea of suicide laws is ludicris to begin with. I'm glad the government still does some things to keep people, well, free.

hey dood, I saw ya stopped by on my site. hope all is well for you...sorry haven't been able to comment in a while I only have a computer at work and I'm typically working my tail off so i don't get much time to chat...anyway, glad to hear california is nice and sunny, hope it stays that way for a while cause that is were I'm going on my honeymoon! we're going to go across the whole state! NICE! anyway, have a terrific day!

I'll grant that suicide is morally wrong. So? That doesn't mean it must be illegal.

what if the doctor euthanizes a person that didn't want to go. no one could know fully, and unfortunately that would be murder and coverable by law.

as for the questions...

What is the purpose of suicide? suicide is a perminant solution to a temporary problem.

Is suicide ever morally right? maybe... if somone is in so much physical pain that no amount of meds will fix it and they are terminally ill, then possibly. 

Should doctor assisted suicide be legal? yes. i read about this situation where a mand was dieing of bone cancer and only had a few weeks to live. but he was in so much pain that they had him on a morphine drip (which NEVER happens) but because he was in so much pain, he would cry every time someone would come into the room because he knew that that meant that he would have to be touched or turned or rotated or whatever... and that meant more pain. is that really living? i think not.

Did the Supreme Court over step its bounds? yes.. to a point... i think that there should be boundaries on it but if somone is in that much pain for the rest of their (small amount) life... then let them end it. if we love our pets enough to put them down when the are in that much pain, why cant we show that much compassion to our family? if thats what they want.

I once heard that most suicides are done because the person wants whatever is happening to them to end. In otherwords they want the pain to stop. Not necessarily that they want to die. But the only way they see out of the pain is to end it permanently by suicide if they feel there is no hope for a cure or the person to come back or the pain to stop. While sometimes it is true that they may not recover  what is scary is sometimes that isn't the truth.  When my husband was told by 4 different hospitals that he was going to die and that he was going to die very soon (3-6 months) with a brain tumor...he could have given up and ended it before the cancer completely ravaged his brain...but he didn't. I am so glad he didnt because that was 10 years ago and he sits in the dining room right now working on his computer....

To answer your question about should doctors assist...the question begs to be asked "what is the purpose of a doctor?" The Hippocratic Oath is very plain about the fact that the doctor is to first "Do No Harm" ...I just think that it goes against the very fabric of why someone goes into doctoring...understanding that it is easy to get from here to there on the issue of isnt it helping someone not harming them...in my husband's case it would have been most definitely harming.

Would I want to face a terrifying death like that or just inject myself and go to sleep? I dont know...it would be a struggle for me...but to open the door for doctor assisted suicide...I do know I would not ask for them to overstep that oath.