Pro and Con Arguments of (Assisted) Suicide - The Argument has Now Grown into a Whole Full Bodied Power

Examination! Time for "inquisition"! I've made this topic because I think there are some (really) disgusting or stupid arguments against (Assisted) Suicide.

First of all, those who seriously argue for the right to (Assisted) Suicide (A)S seems to have the greatest integrity of the subject they're speaking of. Necessarily, those who oppose it, are on the outside of the situation, but may very well have been considering (Assisted) Suicide in the past.

Now, one person, Simone, argues in favour:
1. People like to have the possibility to die, (A)S, if they are in great pain and are bound to die (terminally ill).
2. People like to have the possibility to die, (A)S, if they are losing their mind (fx. Alzheimer's).
3. People like to have the possibility to die, (A)S, if they are in great mental pain/distress to which there's no hope and there's no-one willing to significantly change the situation.
4. Combination of two or more of 1., 2. and 3.
5. People should have the possibility to (A)S so that people can't be kept as virtual slaves anymore or forced to compromise on themselves to that extent.
6. People should have the possibility to (A)S so that people aren't forced to compromise on themselves to any extent (by 1., 2., 3. and 4.), calling the situation for what it is, making the possibility to (A)S possibly less restrictive.
7. There's more dignity in dying reasonably healthy and able (by/implied by X. in post #4 on the PF forum).
8. If I have no constructive role in society, being an adult, and I have the urge to commit suicide. It should be my right to commit this suicide or else I might get involved with illegal guns and homicide(s). Being an adult involves knowing what's best for yourself as you are closest to yourself and clearly then, I'm ethically/lawfully entitled to choose my destiny of suicide in my own opinion. Therefore, also, I demand it!
9. We should allow people to die by 1. and 2., possibly also by 3., 5. and 6. because it's the decent approach to the matters (by Apathy Kills in post #18 on the PF forum). There's a certain power in using the word, "decent", here and I'd like you to contemplate this.
10. The fact that people are driven down to basic instincts, into corners of despair, forced to compromise on themselves is necessarily leading to unnecessary friction and unhealthy tendencies in society. (A)S should therefore be allowed! (I think this is slightly different than 4. and 5.)
11. Acknowledging point 5. of the opposition, I do still think the defacto performance of society in telling people to "get out of the way" in a possibly hidden and cruel manner (if nothing else then implicitly by use of threats and fear) is true whether this is unexpressed or not (because I can think of such thought as having existence, plausibly).

(It should be noted that assisted suicides if they become legal, always are qualified (by whatever requirements), assisted suicides. This is implicit, but now it's explicit!)

One person, Peter, argues against:
1. People should not have the possibility to die, (A)S, because of (my) (presumably) view of the sanctity of life.
2. People should not have the possibility to die, (A)S, because (unfounded) "it's the wrong signal to give".
3. In the case of older people, they may (mis-) perceive their burden on family and friends in an unproportionate way and thus wrongly requesting, wanting or actually committing suicide.
4. There simply is no unbearable/painful situation and therefore all suicides are wrong.
5. By allowing people suicide, one may give a (possibly subtle) signal that people should "get out of the way" and consequently devalue the human life. Therefore, suicide should not be legal. (This may likely be the real argument of 2. while 2. is just a "social" signal of ambiguity.)
6. By denying people (assisted) suicide, one (unfounded) prevents possibly a number of suicides. Therefore, suicide should not be legal. (By atightropewalker in post #47.)

It seems to me to be common to somehow discredit the person who wants to commit suicide by being in doubt of the person's intelligence, sanity or cognition of circumstances.

I'd like you to add arguments to either of these two people. I'd also like you to list possible hidden motives with either of these two persons.

Like this:
Hidden, Peter, "I like the fact that people die in severe pain and I also like the melancholy of thinking so."
Hidden, Peter, "I like the fact that people go through great pains before getting finally getting it done in all sorts of funny ways. Heck, it's a jungle out there and I'm an explorer!"
Hidden, Peter, "If we give people the possibility to (A)S, people can't be kept as virtual slaves anymore or forced to compromise on themselves to that extent."
Consequently, I also like you to note the possibilities of Simone having hidden motives and the very nature of them.

I also like to point out the usual ordeal of suicides. You know, people sobbing and complaining about losing someone beloved, but where are the f**king stories of these (deprived) people who commit suicides? Am I supposed to think they killed themselves because of some illusion? Hah, no way! If I'm supposed to think about suicide, it's the freaking last thing, I think about! I think it's so bloody clear, but people just shut up out of politeness or something. Psychiatry should have rife possibilities on telling people what kind of conditions that drive people into suicide, but do they? F**king never!

Objectively, every possible argument in the discussion of (A)S will take effect and thus be effectuated or denied.

You may find this interesting: "Autopsy of a Suicidal Mind
Edwin S. Shneidman, Ph.D., 2004, Oxford University Press.
Autopsy of a Suicidal Mind is a uniquely intensive psychological analysis of a suicidal mind. In this poignant scientific study, the author assembles an extraordinary cast of eight renowned experts to analyze the suicidal materials, including a ten-page suicide note, given to him by a distraught mother looking for insights into her son's tragic death. Each of the eight experts offers a unique perspective and the sum of their conclusions constitutes an extraordinary psychological autopsy. This book is the first of its kind and a remarkable contribution to the study of suicide." I note that this is from 2004 (why not 1985?).

Important:
People may say that they don't subscribe to all or some of the points or that they certainly not subscribe to the hidden motives (of some people). Their very subscription may very well be so, but this doesn't undercut the fact that their position may support it, objectively! Undeniably then, every possible argument in the discussion of (A)S will take part and thus be effectuated or denied. It should on the other hand, incline them to take part in the debate of preventing this kind of vicious thinking or act in different ways to prevent suicide altogether. Clearly, they will fail to prevent the possibility of such attitudes and I think the massive problem of suicide and its origins are too great to make any solid impact on the matter by practical action. Surely then, this impels a certain kind of dissemination of information. Has Simone won?

By examining the reasons for suicide, it can become a right to commit suicide. Open discussions will decide the laws in the various legislative domains/states and nations. This right can be qualified by fulfilling a set of requirements. I also think if people have a real chance to commit suicide legally, they will embark on a different procedure in relation to family and friends. There's also a chance that family and friends will care more and be more alert to factors leading to suicidal tendencies and the whole debate may also take on better characteristics.

Following the pattern of abortion that must be said to be very successful if you look closely on the statistics (leading to more: well being of kids, quality time, time for attention and love and so on), excluding, of course, the Christian conservatives (for them, we go the Hell all the same), I think this can turn out well for legalised (assisted) suicides too, that it gets accepted among the greater parts of the population, that for some, suicide by medicines is a good solution to sickness and other. There's nothing in the way for the possibility that near, dear people can take part in one's departure from life. The very (A)S can represent dignity in many ways, not to say fill many empty spaces (to make society "complete").

I think legalising suicide has the capacity to slash the "doctors'" vile, perverse, gruesome "games" quite heavily to put it bluntly (despite their, the medical doctors, Hippocratic oath)!

The final death to the Con-side of legalising (assisted) suicide:

The Hippocratic Oath poses in NO way any more charity toward anti-suicide than the charity of those who are in favour because both sides may equally say that they support the best humanity and the best dignity of it.

Thus, the mere uttering of a certain "devotion" to dignity is no point as such! Therefore, "I claim to follow the Hippocratic Oath" is just a blow in the air in this sense/relation!

Thus, in line with the argument started with as "Pro and Con Arguments of (Assisted) Suicide", I have this to add:

"The Intellectual Defence"

It can also be read as "Background for the Intellectual Defence", given the applied ethics. The intellectual defence for the pro-assisted suicide side is to be serious toward people who want the possibility to die because they suffer the most grievous pains. Now, after paying empathy to these people in pain, there are some common points like what possible hidden motives can the pro-side possibly have? Are we not supposed to be real about pain and therefore people in pain? Isn't a very painful life awful? And the arguments continue for the pro-side on this note, all very plausible and direct. So, who is the opposition? Who are they? The point here is that people who commit suicides always pay the highest price and that the opposition stands back confounded and at loss of words. That they are overrun! There is a logical chain of thoughts here that goes through several arguments of entailment to make this happen<ref>Warburton, N., 2004, p. 21. The Basics - Philosophy, 4th ed. Routledge: New York</ref><ref>http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2010/crime-in-the-u.s.-2010/violent-crime/violent-crime. FBI. Retrieved 2012-09-25.</ref><ref>http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-13877314. BBC News. Retrieved 2012-09-25.</ref><ref>http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/statistics_explained/images/4/42/Crimes_recorded_by_the_police%2C_1998-2008_%281_000%29.png. Eurostat. Retrieved 2012-09-25.</ref><ref>Ref.:

http://www.who.int/mental_health/media/en/382.pdf. WHO. Retrieved 2012-09-25.</ref>. And that when these are counted there are 5 references all in all, only under the "Intellectual Defence".

The references then under "The Intellectual Defence" are explained as:

Here are the relevant facts FOR THOSE WHO HAVE ACQUIRED THE BOOKS(!!! A hard academic demand). This is also to be known as "The Explanation of the References (for The Int. Def.):
1. Warburton, N., 2004, p. 21. The Basics - Philosophy, 4th ed. Routledge: New York
The Problem of Evil. "...of the widespread practice of torture." and "...all examples of moral evil or cruelty: human beings inflicting suffering on other human beings..."

2. http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2010/crime-in-the-u.s.-2010/violent-crime/violent-crime
FBI crime statistics. These are most relevant in order to explain that there is a good deal of crime in the World, this time in USA, specifically, and that many people are likely to suffer under it, also those who get to escape more atrocities, more pains, i.e., those who suicide.

3. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-13877314
A news story that details the backlog of the ECtHR by "There is currently a backlog of 150,000 cases at the ECtHR in Strasbourg, and costs of taking a case there are high." and additionally, but only secondarily, "According to SCHR, that means: "The ECtHR is not and should not be seen as a substitute for the individual's right of access to a remedy from domestic courts in Scotland and the UK.""

4. http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/statistics_explained/images/4/42/Crimes_recorded_by_the_police%2C_1998-2008_%281_000%29.png
Eurostat crime statistics. These are most relevant in order to explain that there is a good deal of crime in the World, this time in Europe, specifically, and that many people are likely to suffer under it, also those who get to escape more atrocities, more pains, i.e., those who suicide.

5. http://www.who.int/mental_health/media/en/382.pdf
A WHO document mentioning a totalling number of "1 million people" who are gone, who have committed suicide. And this is back in 1999. I've added this one instead of using the (invalid) reference on Wikipedia by its "suicide numbers", although they are also based on numbers from WHO.

Everybody knows there is a damn hard requirement of reading up FIRST!!! I bet this low "thing" hasn't even checked with Amazon for TOC (of anything). As much as a car can get totalled then also now the opposition that we are to seek out and highlight... (We have a clear conscience...)

Then the logical formal set-up, first we have the sentences (UoD, the entities, the whole disposition will have to wait for now):

1. There is a lot of crime in the World to such extent that even the (principal) ECtHR gets a huge backlog.

The references: Crime takes FBI and Eurostat. ECtHR takes BBC News.

2. And given that torture is part of crime then people may be in a World of hurt "here and there".

The reference: Torture takes Warburton's book. (But AI is also reporting a good deal, although they are very formal. So instead of saying torture they point to "abuse" and "domestic violence" and that children died under "unfortunate" curcumstances. They do avoid the word "torture" because they are part of some kind of political game or something. Annual report from them, although not formally in.)

3. When people are in a World of hurt "here and there", they want to suicide.

The reference: Suicide takes the WHO numbers, both for current (Wikipedia, but link isn't here because...) and this million.

4. People suicide, i.e., the suicide numbers, by hearsay, more than one million deaths every year.

The conclusion here is that people are unquestionably! I don't want to hear the slightest (lying) denial of this! And that this suffering, much because of corruption with the police, lawyers and doctors, cause suicides on the scale mentioned, 1 million in 1999, more than in all wars on Earth combined! I say, LET'S TAKE THEM ON. WE HAVE IDENTIFIED THESE RODENTS NOW AND THAT WE ARE TO PLAY THE WHOLE BOOK OF TRICKS AND MISBEHAVE IN ORDER TO LAND GREATER DIGNITY OUT OF ETHICS AND COSTING THESE RETARDS IN THE PROCESS! Good? Understand?

Of course then, as you can read yourself, enter crime -> ECtHR -> Nigel Warburton -> Suicides! Entailment! Even if these "angel" researchers (clinical/police/sociologists/psychologists/psychiatrists) tell you that they try to help people who are suffering from suicide-issues, i.e., that they consider to kill themselves, what guarantee do you get from them by that? Do they ever so much as (bl*ody) mention a time-scope? Do you see them somewhere in the legal system standing up for anything at all? Do they write sympathically in the newspapers about these issues so as to earn your trust? I can't see them lifting a g*d-d*mn finger for these people who are suffering. And that they do very little in terms of organisation or legal work, even by Amnesty International, domestically (they have duties by AI to care for all), even though, they have gained authority by achieving their degrees. What I figure is that they sit there and do the ordinary and bumble about with little differences to notice whatsoever. So the "entailment" chain of logics above describe these problems, that people are suffering from criminal circumstances so that painful conditions obtain in them (because police, lawyers, and doctors are corrupt, to start with some groups). This argument, along with my description of a possible (class-action) lawsuit are here to alleviate all this awfulness so that at least the theory and the formal deficiencies are described! And this is important beyond words to have this in place. Therefore, this whole argument you see unfolding here may provide for lots of people to either die with dignity or to (consciously) live with dignity. This is the feat of this text on my blog, that we've disclosed these freaked people and that we will fight in order to see increased levels of dignity worldwide!

PS1: I also note that the President of the Norwegian Doctor's Association is against (A)S and that other doctors (tossing in the "authority" and "status") also are usually in favour, citing Hippocratic Oath. This is in no way anything objectional and one is entitled the view, but still... (and silent waters run deep).

PS2: If I, by this, get to inform people and also get to sway opinion into being in favour of (A)S, taking the correct (ethical) view on the issue according to myself, I'll be a very happy person!

Note1: If one allows one suicide, it doesn't necessarily mean that you allow one more suicide. It can be that one "palliative" assisted suicide is prevented or that one actual suicide is prevented. Either way, assisted suicides can't be said to necessarily have a bearing on the total number of suicides, actual or possible.

Note2: stamps from the Philosophy Now forum,
Posted: Tue Feb 02, 2010 11:58 pm; forum.philosophynow.org,
Posted: Wed Feb 03, 2010 10:26 pm; forum.philosophynow.org,
Posted: Thu Feb 18, 2010 11:14 pm UTC + 1 hour; forum.philosophynow.org,
Posted: Sat Sep 25, 2010 11:24 pm UTC + 1 hour; forum.philosophynow.org,
Posted: Thu Jan 13, 2011 5:28 pm UTC + 1 hour; forum.philosophynow.org.