It's such a "grey" area. No black or whites that I can see, although others would disagree I know.
I hate the thought of others deciding how much pain or suffering I should go through. I mean now, if I felt like it, I can go down that road. But if my MS were to leave me dependent on others I couldn't, at least not without help. That doesn't make ethical sense to me. As far as I can see limited euthanisia already exists to some humane degree in the medical professions, as in the case of pain relief during terminal illness, where higher doeses given to relieve pain will automatically hasten the death of a patient. Why are certain kinds of suffering helped and others not?
When I briefly hit EDSS 9 I have to admit I wanted to die. I needed cleaning, feeding, and I was in so much pain I could hardly sleep. I don't know how I'd feel now if I was to get near that again.
I also think the amount of physical limitations one has to deal with are unbearable to some, if acquired, wheras if you might have been born that way, you'd know no other way. One of my colleagues could not use their hands, yet regularly went out for drinks with people. He had no legs yet got into town quicker than me struggling to keep up with him - he used a motorised wheelchair. He had a terrific social life despite needing help with toileting; all things I'd find incredibly hard to adapt to. Yet Ive rarely me a smarter, livelier, more positive guy.
I suppose I am in favour of it but I sometimes wonder if a person had more support in their lives, perhaps in some other cases better treatment for depression, or maybe better support in their social settings, would they choose to go down this route? It's a really tough one...