I was actually having a very similar discussion with some old high school buddies over dinner about this. Specifically, it was about the Fort Hood shooter, and how he's trying to get himself the death penalty by intentionally throwing his defense and representing himself in court. The Judge even came out and ruled that he did, in fact, have the right to represent himself, and that he was in sound state of mind.

I was surprised at the reaction so many people were having that it was such a terrible thing. If someone really wants it all to be over, and they completely understand that once they're gone, there's no coming back, who are we to stand in their way?

My philosophy is pretty much "Only you know what's best for yourself." I apply that to economics and well as theory of government. As well as to situations like this. I have a really hard time wrapping my mind around things when people say "No, he should be kept alive, you don't have a right to end your own life." Pish posh. You certainly do have a right to end your own life. I can't even see how that's an arguable point. You cannot force someone to fill their lungs with air against their will. If someone really wants to die, they're going to find a way to do so, and I think we should respect one's decision to do that, whether we agree with it or not.

Whether the law in your particular country recognizes that right, I think, is totally beside the point.  As a human being, you are able to make the determination for yourself, and no one can make it for you.

Well in my coutrny assisted suicide is allowed, and i see nothing wrong with this, ppl can self choice what to do with their life.

I cannot continue with this discussion, then.

Yes it does. It ends the victim's suffering with a 100% certainty. Forcing them into experimental treatment may very well make the suffering even worse.

No one should ever be allowed to force you to suffer when there are alternatives.

I did not say you should force them. Don't put words in my mouth that I didn't say.

The people involved should always have a say over any sort of general rule, but euthanasia does nothing constructive--it's basically cutting losses--while experimental treatments add to our medical knowledge even if they don't work. People involved get the final say, but defaulting to experimental treatment is on the whole the better answer. You can always euthanize later, but once it's done you can't undo it.

You said that experimental treatment should be the preferred option which suggests that choice is not the preferred option. If choice is not the preferred option you have to assume that there will be people who are experimentally treated against their will and are thereby "forced".

That's the part that I answered to.

So let me get this straight: because I think something immediately relevant and generally preferable to simply killing somebody was left out of the discussion, I must think that generally preffered option needs to be backed with coercive force.

Uh, no. My point was that no one had mentioned this, therefore this discussion was misleading by omission.

I think if they do want to die, we should be able to use their body parts to donate it to people that need it.

Such a decision would need consolation with a qualified psychologist.

After all how many people attempt suicide only to later realize how stupid they were. (answer, a lot more then you probably think.)

Should be encouraged.

Way too many people on the planet. Why force people that don't want to live to do so? Disgusting. Life decisions are yours and yours alone; that includes a right to die.

The only considerations should be mental ability to make a decision, criminal status, and debts. If these are resolved, then there can be no dispute.