This has always been a passionate topic for me, but as I have gotten older and more open-minded (thanks in large part to this site), my position has softened/changed.
I watched the Dr. Phil episode yesterday about a women who wants to euthanize her severely handicapped adult children. They were diagnosed during childhood with a very rare disorder (sorry, can't remember the name) that has progressed to where their quality of life is clearly very little. The son has had a feeding tube for 17 years, and the daughter for the last 5 years. There is no evidence that they know one person from another or that they can see or hear. They are very close to a total vegetative state.
Now, I can't totally say that I am for assisted suicide, but I do have a problem with the fact that in some states you can legally starve a person, yet can't put euthanize them with a more humane and dignified way. The one opponent they had on said sarcastically, "so, we should put them to sleep like we do criminals and pets". She said this like it was helping her argument, but really I think it said a lot to change my opinion. We are giving pets and criminals better treatment in end of life issues than we are our most vulnerable of citizens.
My feelings haven't totally shifted, but I am definitely more in the middle now. I think it can be a muddy issue when you are dealing with guardians having to make the decision, how do we measure quality of life, etc.
So, what do you think?
A little more information on the show:
Dr. Phil.com - Shows - Deadly Consequences