It all begins with the Hippocratic oath. Doctors take this pledge of good behavior, essentially, while other health care professionals take various forms of this oath. It serves as a moralistic guideline in situations that may happen in a physician's career in general and specifically in an assisted suicide situation. Clearly, this is not an easy situation to handle and therefore has become a great source of controversy in the medical field. Whether or not to give professional, medical assistance to a requesting patient regarding their suicide involves moral, legal, and even personal opinions on its value and precedence. Followers of Kant would be likely to believe that it is the intent in which an action is based upon that gives the action its good or bad qualities. Therefore, physician-assisted suicide is in fact a "good" act according to some. On the other hand, a utilitarian would believe that if killing, either passively or actively, a person resulted in a better life for many other people, then the act is defensible as good. .
Under reasonable circumstances, a person could not give a "good" reason that defends killing another person unless as a result of self-defense. This is a pretty safe assumption. Still, however, physician-assisted suicide is not to be placed in this same category of moral wrongs and rights because it is not killing in the same sense. It isn't the same because the intent is not the same. The intent in physician-assisted suicide is to relieve pain and suffering. The intent in murder is to provide additional pain and suffering. Therefore, it does not logically follow that "because it is morally wrong to murder another human except in the case of self-defense, and physician-assisted suicide is not self defense, it is therefore wrong to engage in physician-assisted suicides". This is not logical if such engagements are not (and shouldn't be) viewed as murder. .
To commit murder involves more than the technically, observable act of causing someone else's death.