1. No.

2. Would have to make that decision when I reach that age. Can’t say now.

3. Absolutely and unequivocally, yes!

Why not live on? There is no reason for anyone to be born, no true purpose for anyone to be alive, and no reason for anyone to cease to die. Whatever happens happens.

Dying however you want is already an option, and I don't think anything except physical restraint is going to stop that. Anyone of sound mind who wants to die will have their way should they decide. Taking that right away isn't enforcible for obvious reasons, assisted or otherwise.

It can be challenging to want to live if you are in pain physically or emotionally...

I wouldn't want to live endlessly if there were no others to enjoy it with or if it was too boring and dull...

I would not want to be a burden on any person nor would I want anyone taking care of me...so...maybe 90 or so?

I think assisted suicide should be available to anyone who wants it. (within reason ie, no kids etc)
I wouldn't want to live longer than probably 200 or 250 years. 150 to save money, the rest to learn and adventure.
Endless life sounds positively aweful.

Yes, I would choose to live forever and yes, "assisted suicide should be an option for those of sound mind"

yes, I would choose to live on forever. eternal youth, I don't believe in growing old, and getting medical problems , or being put into nursing homes.. It puts a big strain on family members and relatives when one looses a loved one, and financial strain, death is a disease that scientists are trying to find a cure for, regarding question three, yes I think they should have the right to do that. some people are in constant pain. and suffering.

I do not deal with hypothetical questions that deal with impossibility. Will I consider assisted or unassisted suicide? Yes, if I reach the stage in which I have little quality of life and am a burden on others.

Assisted suicide should not only be for those of sound mind.. remember Terry Schiavo? She was absolutely gone, but her heart kept beating. When she was finally allowed to die, she had to die slowly, of thirst and hunger. The compassionate human choice would be euthanasia.

Many people either die long slow deaths with neurological diseases they know will take their minds far before their bodies give out. They should have the ability to make advance directives that include "when I reach xyz stage of my disease, please kill me", and that includes the person not being able to c9nsent, and not being abnle to understand what is happening, at that time. I don't think proving "brain death" is necessary. Then add all the people who suffer serious head trauma, are nothing but vegetables... If Otto Warmbier (the guy in korea) didn't die on his own, should his family been forced to care for his body, even though his mind and self was long gone (probable drug overdose, ,maybe forced).

It's ironic, that death row prisoners have more rights than a dead but not really dead person, who just needs help.

Screw being middle aged (what's that actually mean with no old age in this scenario, anyways?). If I have no "off" switch I'll take early 20's, thanks.

1. No idea. I can see getting bored, maybe eventually, and deciding I've lived long enough. No clue how long that would take.
2. Not a clue. 200? 500? 4000? Without living it I couldn't put a number on it. So I'll go with 10,000.
3. Yes.

Statistically, if people didn't die of old age the average person would live to a little over 4000 before an accident killed them. At least according to the last article I read on that, like 10 years ago.