A number of years ago, I had one of my first debates at a local college about California prop 161 which was a physician assisted suicide initiative. They were for it, and I was against it for what they considered religious reasons. Therefore, they thought I was forcing my religious point of view on other people, and that their view was religiously neutral.
I pointed out that their point of view was equally religious. They were arguing that when people are suffering, they ought to have a right to take their own life and put themselves out of their misery. How do they know that taking their life will put them out of their misery? Certainly that will end the physical misery here, but doesn’t that make a presumption about what happens afterwards?
What if it turns out that there is life after death, and it’s not going to be pleasant for everybody, including lots of people who take their own lives? If there is a hell, as Jesus indicated, and those who have not been forgiven of their crimes go there, then they won’t be ending their misery through physician-assisted suicide, they will be just starting a much greater misery.
My point is not to argue for one side or the other, but rather to point out that in many of the issues like this, there are not neutral positions where one is religious and the other isn’t. Both sides are making religious assumptions, and that is especially true when it comes to doctor-assisted suicide.