Gil above stated it very eloquently: it's a simple matter of self-ownership, which to me is self-evident. the objector's arguments against physician-assisted suicide is based on assumptions underpinned by nothing more than tradition at best.

as the owner of my body, what i want from a doctor is for them to be a facilitator of my will regarding the physical aspect of my life. not a moral captor holding me hostage to society and whatever it is from which i might be seeking to deliver myself, but a physical service provider: a body mechanic - and i decide when i get scrapped, not the mechanic.

i wouldn't advocte forcing anyone to assist, but it being illegal is morally indefensible. the line between vice and virtue is one which can only be drawn by the individual. to do so robs individuals of the ability to make moral decisions "by their own lights", as Gil put it. some prioritise pain minimisation over longevity and that is the individual's right, as it is to define the acceptable parameters. this right is a fact, the denial of which is simply the denial of it, not a moral pillar. indeed for the reasons given above it's the opposite.

regarding the death penalty i'm in the human-fallibility camp. i'd have no qualms if convictions were 100% accurate but the only person who can be absolutely certain whodunnit is the victim..