On the one hand, many religious and other public leaders who oppose assisted suicide argue that it is immoral on the ground that life is an irreplaceable gift that should not be destroyed by any unnatural act. Apart from assisted suicide's moral and philosophical implications, many support or oppose the practice for practical reasons. Opponents argue that unbearable pain and suffering result from medical mismanagement of pain. They believe that physicians and other caregivers are unduly concerned about a patient's becoming addicted to painkilling drugs, and some physicians are not up to date on the most modern techniques available to control pain. Supporters, believe, however, that doctors should at least be able to choose whether they will participate.
Opponents also insist that there are significant social issues to be considered.
For example, they fear that poor or unsophisticated patients could be pressured to request assisted suicide to save money or on the ground that their life has minimal social value. In countering these arguments, supporters suggest that safeguards against improprieties can be built into legislation permitting assisted suicide. For example, rather than disallowing people who have made a thoughtful, careful decision to end their life from doing so, government should regulate the practice to ensure that people who consider the option are mentally competent, aware of the consequences of their actions, able to make the decision without coercion, and given every opportunity to change their mind if they so desire. Supporters also contend that prohibiting assisted suicide prevents patients and their families from making their own choice about the practice. The debate is further complicated by the question of to whom the assisted-suicide option should be available.