Please dont take offence as you've raised some very valid points here and have put up a good argument, however if I respond to everything here we'll inevitably end up going on a tangent. The main point being argued here is should in the case you raised (again, a very strong argument against punishment) should the killer be punished.

Quote Originally Posted by Oresa
You're talking about the right to kill, i'm talking about the right to die. The two concepts are not the same.
You already have a right to die. You can request that all supporting equipment be switched off. I still believe that a person can kill themselves provided they can communicate. Whether it is practical or not is another matter.
That then brings up the point should a person be allowed to kill simply because it is a more practical alternative to the sufferer killing themself?
You're assuming that the person who wants to die is actually still capable of holding a knife in their hand, and moving it with enough force to cause lethal wounding. Wanna try this when you're paralysed from the neck down??
I used the knife as an example. As I said above, if the person is capable of communicating, they are capable of killing themselves, provided with the right equipment.
I'm aware of the current legality of euthanasia. I'm not debating what happens to a person found guilty of it now, I'm debating what should happen. Forget what the law says today, what's your own moral viewpoint on the situation? Your answer seems to be largely based on the fact that euthanasia is against the law, not that it's morally dubious. Why is this??
Morals are a combination of many things. Things like the law, current pupular opinion and what we are taught for example. However my position on euthanisia is irrelevant to this discussion.
As an example as to why, I think this current govt's way of enforcing speed limits is rubbish, and that the road traffic laws need to be changed to better combat road dangers, but that does not mean I think speeders that are caught should be let off because of this.
I am talking about whether people should be punished for it. I still believe that is the case. However that doesn't mean that I think someone guilty of it should be locked up automatically. Far from it. In many cases, simply being taken to court for it and suffering the loss is more than enough, so they can be found guilty and sentenced to a very small amount of community service thats not degrading etc. Like working in a charity shop for a few days maybe. Or maybe having to endure a seminar on why its not OK to kill someone even if they want to die
I like this example, but the way i'm looking at it, it's an argument for control and proper legislation, rather than against euthanasia. Much like the idea of legalising heroin in order to control it and make it safe, legalisation of euthanasia would allow the potential for a structured system that would prevent the sorts of occurences we see in your scenario.
This is more about your position on euthanasia than the punishment side of things. You make a good case for it, though I disagree

No, because they're operating without all the information they require to do so.
Due to their relationship with the sufferer, a loved one will never be in a position to decide what is best. Their judgement will be blinded by emotion, plus they are not medically qualified to decide if the suffering will never end.
I'm assuming your 'compassionate person' is a doctor, in which case, mistaking lacerations and a few fractures for life-threatening injuries is a pretty big mistake. As for criminal negligence, I have to say i think it's incredibly important to have a system of accountability in place, particularly in a sphere of operation such as medicine.
There is a solution without modifying the law however. According to TV (yeah, good source I know) a lot of cases of assisted suicide seem to be people reprogramming the morphine machines to be able to deliver lethal doses. Computers these days can easily be made to recognise facial movements or sounds. If it is made clear to the person how to override the safety and the consequences, after that person has been deemed to be mentally fit enough to make such a decision, they will be able to kill themselves. I think to do this the governemnt will simply have to revise its H&S guidelines.