Emotional reactions often dominate discussion of assisted suicide, but the issue was argued before the Supreme Court as a constitutional clash between ethical and legal principles of personal autonomy and the state government's obligation to preserving life. For Against The appeals courts ruled that a person terminally ill and mentally competent has a constitutional right to receive lethal drugs from a doctor to hasten death. Opponents see a moral and legal difference between an active act by a physician to provide lethal mechanisms and passively letting nature take its course so that the underlying disease causes death. These people feel their self is being destroyed by their illness. They view death as a form of 'self-preservation'.
People have a right to end their pain and suffering.
Some law professors have stated obliterating the difference between active and passive suicide assistance opens the constitutional arguments for giving lethal mechanisms to any person who doe not have a terminal illness. Potentially groups like frail elderly and children would be vulnerable or coerced insto assisted suicide when they may have depression or pain that is treatable. Now it's time to debate .