Depends on the regulation put in place and circumstances
Thank God it's legal in Oregon.
I support this ruling, but it's specious reasoning to say those who die by assisted suicide don't suffer, just like it's specious to say that people who die in their sleep don't suffer. On the outside it might look peaceful but we don't know what their experience is. That said, assisted suicide for the terminally ill sure beats the long and drawn out suffering that usually happens before they die, not to mention the medical cost. There are good moral and practical reasons for this ruling.
To play devil's advocate, the part of the debate that I find really fascinating is the "do no harm" edict of medicine, which is pretty much a global phenomenon in all cultures. With assisted suicide you're basically killing them... can a therapeutic value be argued for that?
There's also a classism argument to be made here. Assisted suicide may still be expensive, prohibiting the poor from ending a disease of protracted suffering. At the same time, it would be cheaper than long term care, so if someone can't afford palliative care would we just refer them to a death doctor?
Your statement is ridiculous.
So an injection to end someones life is aggressive conduct.
But intentionally depriving someone of care, food and water under my care knowing they will die is not aggressive conduct given the level of suffering involved with the two options.
That makes no sense because either way you've killed that person by your actions.