>

One of the classic arguments against it comes from John Locke, who says that suicide isn't one of our rights. From the SEP article about him:

According to Locke, God created man and we are, in effect, God's property. The chief end set us by our creator as a species and as individuals is survival.  
...  
It follows immediately that "he has no liberty to destroy himself, or so much as any creature in his possession, yet when some nobler use than its bare possession calls for it" (Treatises II.2.6). So, murder and suicide violate the divine purpose.

If you don't believe in God you might not be so persuaded. But its worth asking whether there is a 'right' to suicide, like there might be to life or to healthcare. If not, then suicide isn't something you can do, regardless of if living causes pain.
Where do you draw the line? Terminally ill patients suffer for months or years living a less then desirable life and would jump at the chance of being able to leave painlessly and peacefully. 

Sure, some of them would do so. But then what degree of pain and suffering should qualify? How to set a standard? Cause we are to enable legally killing a person and that understandably should not be easy.

I don't see a problem with this as long as family members agree that is the best procedure to follow for the person.

Why family members? We have two problems here - both possibility of family members needlessly prolonging suffering in cases where assisted suicide is wanted by the patients and possibility of family bullying a patient into suicidal thoughts to warrant an assisted suicide.
And what about medical malpractice? There are absolutely horrible people who shouldn't be doctors, who can use it to make statistics of their hospital look better. On the other hand we will have doctors who are devoted to saving lives who will be forced to kill people.

On the other hand I also see those with severe mental health disorders.

That is a complete different can of worms, introducing eugenics. People with severe mental disorders often are not able to decide about themselves and we are discussing the topic of deciding should they live or die. Don't you see an obvious danger there?

So why do we allow people to suffer? 

Because ways to resolve it are very likely to introduce even more suffering. That is the sad truth. We are pushing the boundaries of medicine to save or resolve issues with many health problems, but there will be people who are beyond saving as of now. But would they be beyond saving tomorrow?
How are we to study those diseases and try new treatments if we decide that they can die? How would a family feel if they decided to let their family member die to ease suffering if two years later there is a breakthrough that allows to cure their aliment, or make it bearable to live with it? >

"Sure, some of them would do so. But then what degree of pain and suffering should qualify?"
I dunno. Maybe the person's who dying of cancer? >

I do generally agree that the severely and terminally ill should at a certain point be given the option of euthanasia, in order to avoid weeks or months of extreme pain and loss of bodily function before inevitable death.
Euthanasia for mental illness is a different matter. I could see how this could lead to some potentially dangerous outcomes. For one, children in poverty are more likely to be subjected to abuse, neglect, and maltreatment; people living in poverty also have less access to good mental healthcare and proper medications.
As a result, I think you would see a disproportionate amount of impoverished people being euthanized. It would be, "If you're wealthy, we'll give you proper medication and therapy; but if you're poor, we can always just kill you and get it over with!" A more sustainable (and less dystopian) solution would be to extend functional mental health resources and support to those who can't currently afford it.
Also, statistics show that 90% of people who unsuccessfully attempt suicide once don't go on to later die by suicide, and 70% never attempt suicide again. This seems to suggest that suicide is actually not the answer these people were looking for, and they can still go on to live stable, even happy lives.
Finally, there's the question of informed consent. Depression is a disease that chemically tricks your brain into wanting to kill itself. In this state, can a patient truly make a decision of informed consent? Is the cure to the illness just giving into it? It's a bit like saying we should treat schizophrenia by all just pretending a patient is actually the Emperor of France. >


A more sustainable (and less dystopian) solution would be to extend functional mental health resources and support to those who can't currently afford it.

Exactly.
If euthanasia becomes legal (which it should be, imo), we need to be very careful that it is strictly a method of last resort. We cannot have a situation where the system basically encourages the poor or mentally ill to kill themselves because it'd be easier/less of an economic burden.
That's just eugenics. >

The problem with euthanasia and assisted suicide is that they tend to be directed towards individuals with a poor quality of life. However, just because quality of life is poor, does not mean that individual has a life that is of less moral value than a person whose quality of life is normal. If quality of life does not determine the moral value of a life, then I don't see how it should be morally permissable, let alone legally permissable to allow someone to prematurely end their life or that of another person. It may be helpful here to scope out what it means to properly bodily exercise bodily autonomy. 
In my view, prematurely your ending your life by initiating a new fatal casual series of events (e.g. lethal injection) to quicken death is always an improper exercise of bodily autonomy. On the other hand, refusing treatment for an already existing fatal causal series of event (e.g. terminal disease) is a proper exercise of bodily autonomy, as nothing is being done to hasten death in the person. >


The problem with euthanasia and assisted suicide is that they tend to be directed towards individuals with a poor quality of life.

Thats not a problem at all. It is the very intent.

However, just because quality of life is poor, does not mean that individual has a life that is of less moral value than a person whose quality of life is normal.

This is the entire premise you build on your argument, which is more of an opinion piece than anything else. Most of the logic doesn't even make sense, especially the last paragraph. >


I don't see a problem with this as long as family members agree that is the best procedure to follow for the person.

Yeah thats the issue here. I'm totally fine with it so long as the patient can consciously consent to it themselves however, allowing a family member to consent to it on their behalf can be dangerous. The main thing we worry about here is a family member choosing to have their family member euthanized for other, more nefarious reasons. >

Sorry when I put that statement I meant both parties had to consent. >

Oh gotcha, well in that case we are in agreement >

I do agree with medically assisted suicide to some degree if the person has a terminal illness and is suffering, but I can’t get behind letting people die because of mental illness. I myself have a couple of mental disorders and at one point thought about suicide, but it’s not that I wanted to die I just wanted to go to sleep so I be feeling less. I wanted to live but why would I want to live a life of pain and suffering? My thoughts were dark and hopeless and for a lot of people these irrational thoughts overcome them. When someone is in that much distress they are not thinking clearly. It’s hard to see solutions when you are in distress. People that want medically assisted suicide are more often than not terminally ill patients. There is no more hope for them and only pain. People with mental illnesses have hope. Situations you’re in and emotions you’re feeling are never permanent. People that are terminal fight everyday just for death to overcome them either way. People with mental illness, in my personal experience and opinion, start off fighting and slowly let their guard down and expose their weakest points. They stop fighting even when they see the light at the end of the tunnel. Don’t let death overcome you. There’s always a way out besides taking your life. And these words don’t mean much to people when they’re in it, but trust me if you get through the fight it’ll open you up to some great wisdom and healing. There are many medications and different therapies one can try to better their mental illness. People with mental illnesses are some what terminal in a way. These things don’t go away, but with therapy and medication and self care it can be managed greatly. >

See I can't agree with this statement. I feel there are definitely levels of mental health that would need to be assessed.
If it's mental illness due to life getting you down because your aren't making enough money or you lost your job then that can be fixed with the right intervention but mental illness caused by distress (E.G physical abuse as a child, Rape or severe mental disorder that effects day to day life) they are a different story. PTSD is a real thing and it's very life altering. >

I really do get what you’re saying. PTSD, abuse, and r*** can be really life altering. However I see suicide as someone suppressing those feelings. The things you listed are nothing short of terrible and I know those can really fuck up a persons life and mental stability, and it sucks that these things have happened to people but life is about feeling. Are bodies weren’t made to suppress, we were made to feel all these feelings of anger and sadness, and happiness and joy. We have to accept that this world is cruel and unnecessary and feel all the feelings that come with it, good or bad. When you hit rock bottom you have to lie there and feel the asphalt against your cheek for a second and slowly build yourself back up again, and then when u hit the ground again you do it all over. People drink and smoke their lives away because they don’t want to feel, but that’s what we are supposed to. It’s supposed to hurt like hell and it might even feel like that pain will kill you, but are bodies are meant to handle that level of distress and you will get through it. We always do until it happens again and the cycle continues. >

I think the problem is in the implication of what it actually means to be “self” euthanized as to some degree, as it all requires assistance, which is sort of the point of making it “illegal” and thus more isolated in nature. 
I mean, we can clearly see that, by technicality, it is not illegal to commit suicide. What we do is discourage external parties from either encouraging or misleading people into doing it, as unfortunately most of the people who would be deemed to be in a “worthy” position are also usually in an unequal power dynamic. It’s absolutely not perfect, and I do wish there were some way to make it easier for people in “pain” to be relieved as such, but I’ve yet to ever see an argument which absolves the logistical issues presented. >

My perspective is that you aren’t giving people the right to die, you are giving physicians the ability to kill for no other reason than consent. When that threshold is crossed it then becomes a matter of checks and balances; perhaps it should only be available for the terminally ill. The problem with that is those checks and balances are negotiated with each generation. I’d rather lock the whole thing away, even at the expense of the terminally ill, to prevent the possibility of this being turned on the depressed, the anxious, the disabled or the poor.
I will not affirm suicidal thoughts. >

If it should be legal in most countries, then why shouldn't it be legal in all countries? >

Suicide isn't legalised in all the countries especially in my country. >

most? >

Life is a sacred gift and should be cherished, even in difficult circumstances.  Physician-assisted suicide can endanger the vulnerable, erode trust in the medical profession, and cheapen human life and dignity. >


Life is a sacred gift and should be cherished, even in difficult circumstances. 
cheapen human life and dignity

My grandmother before she passed away would tell you that she lived a rich, full life, but that she was ready to pass on. It makes me sad that she couldn't have died in a painless, dignified way, which I think she would have preferred. 
Those are your values, which you are imposing on others. I'm not saying there aren't potential issues with assisted suicide, but you don't get to tell people what to do with their bodies, no more than they get to tell you what to do with yours. What makes you think you can choose something so personal, so significant, better than they can?
Plenty of countries do allow assisted suicide already, you know. There are doctors and philosophers who have written books about the ethics of assisted suicide, and have found ways to mitigate the downsides you might naively object to.