If a person has a right to live, the question is whether he/she has the right not to live, If all the fundamental rights are to be read together, what is true of one fundamental right is also true of another fundamental right. It is not, and cannot be, disputed that fundamental rights have their positive as well as negative aspects. Opponents to the view that the right to live will include the right not to live argue that it is rather difficult to hold that the right to life impliedly guaranteed by the Constitution includes the right to die. However, the argument remains unending. Euthanasia and physician assisted suicide have become prominent public issues in many countries over the past few years with several countries or regions of countries debating legislation on euthanasia and/or physician assisted suicide. Although there is growing public acceptance of physician-assisted deaths all over the world, many professional organizations remain opposed to it. Most of the debates on the issue are usually framed as issues of morality while many basic empirical questions remain unanswered. In an attempt to better understand the argument, spurring continued debate, for the punishment in attempted suicide, this paper examines the following questions: (1) why is a law enacted and what object(s) it seeks to serve; (2) why is a particular act treated as a crime; (3) why is suicide committed; (4) is suicide a non-religious act; (5) is suicide immoral; (6) does suicide produce adverse sociological effects; (7) is suicide against public policy; (8) who commits suicide; and (9) how should suicide-prone persons be dealt with? References