Firstly, I feel that such is for the medical professional to decide. Secondly, the (imo rather arbitrary ) condition that the patient themselves must end their lives by their own hand has the potential to add more suffering onto an already tortured existence.
Pre-empting the response of "then they don't want it bad enough": No, that's not how it works. Suicide is hard and there's a reason people who want to kill themselves do not just decide to stop breathing. Not everything can be accomplished through willpower alone.
edited 20th Oct '11 3:53:41 PM by GreatLich
Perhaps, but there is also chronic depression to consider, which is treatable, but difficult to detect. Just relying on the patient to decide opens up the possibility of all kinds of abuse and avoidable trajedy, so I do not consider "patient consent" to be sufficient protection.
I changed accounts.
To me, there is no such thing as "assisted suicide."
If you tell me that you would like to commit suicide, and are of right mind, have been evaluated by professionals, and are a capable and reasonable person, I will hand you a weapon with a single round and leave the room. This is suicide, regardless. If I shoot you myself, regardless of your decision in this regard, it is murder. There is no in between, to me. A simple, and yet all-important, distinction.
Is it arbitrary? Perhaps. But I think that suicide is no longer such if it involves others directly. You must, as a part of the process of ending your own life, come to peace with the fact that you will do it yourself, if you are in any way remotely capable of such. That is how I look at it.
If they can't do it themselves, they're probably not in their right mind. Such is why there should be screening and tests and evaluations before hand. Suicide is hard, and if it takes awhile, that's fine. But to me, it must be a singular, unilateral action, period.
Providing means is neutral. In the end, it is the choice of the person—and only their choice—that should determine what course of action is taken.
I am now known as Flyboy.
Since I've basically switched sides, I'll just let the "assisted vs. delivered" issue go. Instead, I'll ask why you think the patient making the decision to act means that they are doing something willingly? People undertake actions they really dont want to do or that they regret later all the time.
I changed accounts.
I'd prefer you'd at least have to go through two physicians and a psychiatrist before you got to do this kind of thing. Can't say we didn't try to talk you out of it, anyhow.
I am now known as Flyboy.
Pro-Freedom Fanatic
I've got nothing against consensual mercy kills. If I became paralyzed, severely maimed or severely brain-damaged, I'd very much like somebody to off me.
You exist because we allow it and you will end because we demand it.
I changed accounts.
I don't do death. I would obviously come back and check, but I'm not going to stand and watch.
Furthermore, that's merely an analogy. Ideally, they would use medication.
Murder is legally defined as such. I'm not talking about legality here.
There is a difference, insofar as I care. This is not an argument. You will not win. I will not win. It is immaterial, and yet it is all that matters to me, in this debate. Also, as I said, there is no "assisted suicide." There is suicide, and there is murder.
When I said "if it takes awhile, that's fine," I mean in terms of coming to grips with actually doing it. The action itself should be as quick and painless as possible and conceivable.
I am now known as Flyboy.
Opposing physician assisted suicide is barbaric.
I changed accounts.
It's also economically inefficient. If someone is on their death bed, and they want to die before their degenerative brain disease (let's just call it Glioblastoma) causes them to lose ALL of their mental faculties, but you don't let them do so in a painless and dignified fashion, then they end up staying alive until the disease kills them on its own. Since this inevitably involves Hospice care which is tremendously expensive, it is also an extra undue burden on society.
I changed accounts.
That wasn't a call to go back into economic robot mode, you know. 
And, hey, if they want to die, they're free to kill themselves, if they like. I don't care what we have to provide them. So long as it is them—and only them—pulling the proverbial trigger, I'll do whatever they need to let them do their thing. That is the single provision I refuse to budge on—that the action is theirs and theirs alone.
I am now known as Flyboy.
Well that's totally arbitrary. Why should we make it more difficult for people to do what it is they want to do? Why should we prevent people who are paralyzed from being given the courtesy of ending the prison that is their own existence? WHY USAF WHY?!
Well, I guess we could program suicide droids that respond telepathically to a person's thoughts, but I'm afraid the technology really just isn't there yet.
I changed accounts.
Morality is arbitrary.
Someone who's totally paralyzed can still operate a wheelchair. If they can do that, they can design a machine that responds to some form of stimulus—hell, it could respond to blinking—in order to perform the suicide.
I am now known as Flyboy.
No, a totally paralyzed person can not operate a wheelchair. What are you talking about? If they're paralyzed from the waist down sure. But I'm talking about, like, total lack of any movement.
Besides, even for those who do have control of their arms, allowing for painless death in the form of a prepared cocktail is far more humane than insisting "USE A SHOTGUN, FAG"
I changed accounts.
Such is not what I meant, if I'm reading the implication correctly. I mean, as in, I don't go to funerals, and don't care to associate with the deaths of others.
So you say.
~shrug~
I don't really care what reasoning you see.
Stephen Hawking can operate a wheelchair, and he's almost totally paralyzed. They've invented, if you haven't noticed, motor-powered wheelchairs. 
Er... when did I say that would be ideal?
I am now known as Flyboy.
Well, there's two types of physician assisted suicide. There's "Okay, I'll make the cocktail, I'll set up the thanatron, but you have to flick the switch" and there's "You are totally and utterly unable to move. You will be lying here forever unless you are permitted to die. The currently legally prescribed method of letting you die is to deny you food and water, but instead of that, I'm going to inject the aforementioned cocktail into you, so you don't have to suffer."
Granted, in the latter case, morphine allegedly makes the process painful even with just dehydrating, so I don't know why I make such a big deal out of it. It's the former circumstance that I'm most championing for.
I changed accounts.
There are a host of different designs we could use for machines that could allow the latter category to commit suicide alone. If they're aware and capable of consenting, it can be done.
As am I. Point?
I am now known as Flyboy.
Zzzzzzzzzz
USAF here's a question of where you draw the line on "do it themselves"? At what point are they "doing it themselves"?
Take an injection of, I dunno, let's say morphine, that's large enough to kill them — Is it acceptable for someone else to insert the needle into their arm, or do they have to be able to take it and do the injection themselves? Or medication in pill form — Is it going too far for the doctor to place the pills in their mouth? What if he then holds the cup of water so that they can get at the straw? Is that too far? What if they're on IV fluids? Do they have to be able to add the drug to the drip bag themselves, or can the doctor do that?
You don't, as far as I know, expect that a mildly incapacitated person be able to do medical procedures on themselves — why is it different for this?
And who's going to design and make and pay for all these different machines? Or do you think that a few designs will work for every situation?
edited 20th Oct '11 5:37:58 PM by Madrugada
...if you don’t love you’re dead, and if you do, they’ll kill you for it.
I changed accounts.
Alright.
The latter, although injection would not be the ideal method of doing such a thing.
If they are incapable of doing this, but capable of moving their head and swallowing, the ideal would be some form of liquid.
This is acceptable.
Once again, this would not be the ideal method of conducting such a thing.
Such is why systems must be developed so that they can perform it themselves. I'm not saying it's ready to go as it stands. Far from it, in fact. Such is why they must be accommodated.
Ninja edit!
Ideally, such machines would be few in number, but highly modular, so that special circumstances could be accounted for. There's not a lot of variation in hospital settings, though, so I do think that it would not require an undue number of separate designs.
As for design and cost, I am in favor of government-run healthcare, so...
edited 20th Oct '11 5:42:16 PM by USAF713
I am now known as Flyboy.
My understanding is that morphine doses sufficiently large just sort of stop working because they can't be introduced into the bloodstream fast enough. But that was orally injected morphine so maybe intravenous morphine could be lethal. Not sure.
Well, the other slippery slope is when do you stop trying to persuade them not to die? At what point are we comfortable that the person is trying to die for what we consider "sound" reasons and not, say, because their wife told them they shouldnt be a burden anymore?
I'm not touching that one with a 10 foot pole, because I don't think people will like my answer ;P
@USAF: "What I meant was, if you're capable of giving meaningful consent, you're capable of working some sort of delivery mechanism, whether it be through your mouth, or by blinking to set off a machine, or whatever."
Someone is going to have to provide and set up the delivery mechanism, which is active assistance. But since I see you have already agreed to the arrangement they have in the Netherlands, I deduce that it isnt assisted suicide you really object to, but "Physician Delivered Suicide".
So I guess I'll take the Devil's Advocate position. In the Netherlands, or elsewhere, what protections are in place against psychological pressure to die by the family or the doctor?