I am in favor of living wills. I am opposed to other people deciding that a person should die against that person's wishes.
Beyond those, it gets fuzzier. In theory, I think that a person has the right to decide to end their life if they are making that decision with a clear head (i.e., they are not depressed or otherwise incapacitated). In practice, I fear that people who are terminally ill or disabled will not be screened and treated for depression as vigorously as the able-bodied. It's considered more reasonable for someone who is in pain or who is severely disabled to want to die than for, say, a young healthy woman. The latter would raise alarm bells if she wanted to commit suicide, but the former should too.
Generally I'm against it. It's just so damn hard to figure how where and how to draw the line. Do you treat a patient in a persistent coma with antibiotics? Do you keep them alive with a respirator? feeding tube? code cart? Do you treat them if they develop a cancer?
That's just the life-preserving part of it. Then there's the whole life-ending part.
Do you let them die by withholding the things mentioned above? If so, when do you start withholding? Do you give them a deadly drug (and to blazes with the Hippocratic Oath)? If so, when? After 'x' months of coma? After 'x' failed treatments for cancer? After 'x' degree of disability development from MS or AD or xyzabc syndrome?
And who would create these criteria? And who would enforce them?
People who wish to live by what? Euthanasia? Now THAT'S a funny concept. :)
I don't hear about forced cases in countries that do allow it.
Actually there have been some cases that have ended up in court or at least before review boards. It's not common but it does happen. Not surprising of course. Is there anything people can't or won't fuck up if they get the chance?