[quote=@SleepingSilence]I feel like almost all of that, was saying the exact same thing. But the thing in bold, is what I'll focus on. You may not be trying to just use a personal story to point out sheer lack of evidence on why all the failed suicides is worth the 300 billion dollars in cost and all the negative ramifications of assisted suicide and what it can lead to. All you said, was personal, emotional and nothing factual.[/quote]

Well, good news. Death is inherently emotional and personal and not at all financial which is the way you're putting it forth. This is how it works in a 2017 Western country with a social net that can afford to aid people even in things that aren't bare necessities purely because e can afford to, you know, give people a decent quality of life.

[quote=@SleepingSilence]I've already pointed out multiple times, I've been suicidal before, so it's just outright disingenuous to say I don't know what it feels like to feel that way.[/quote]

Have you been terminally ill? Have you been sick to the point of not being able to live your life anymore? If so, congratulations, you know how it feels. Having been suicidal has absolutely zero, nop, nihil, nothing to do with euthanasia. 

[quote=@SleepingSilence]Also the way YOU describe your scenario it sounds like you would push him into suicide with how your talking about it.[/quote] Nivea. Please don't strawman me or put words in my mouth. I would never do that. [quote=@SleepingSilence]"The way he was living was not human-worthy" what makes you or anyone decide that?[/quote]

My own opinion built by experience on the matter decides that. Visit a nursing home for people with illnesses like alzheimers sometimes. You'll see the light. 

[quote=@SleepingSilence]Because that gets into slippery slope argument that leads people to killing people that are disabled. The "thing I parroted" was an argument done by someone who knows what they're talking about and just went through why "dying with dignity" isn't a viable argument. I wasn't imposing that pain was the reason to offing oneself, but you seemed to be. [/quote]

Well, for one, it only leads to that argument if you're an absolute moron. You liked using Dutch euthanasia laws as an example (the country where I am from) so I have to ask you when are the Dutch going to start killing disabled people? These laws were created [i]on the request of people who suffer and want to kill themselves in a dignified way[/i]. They weren't made by doctors that want to kill people - nor an evil government that wants to kill all the undesirables. They were made by patients. They were fought heavily and even the doctors themselves didn't really agree to it. It took many years for the organization of patients to even get an agenda on the board of the politicians - who also fought against it because it's new and unheard of. 

I think that the 'person who knows what they are talking about' is the patient themselves. Whether you agree with euthanasia or not is up to you - I certainly see why one would be against it but strongly disagree. But the fact of the matter is... if you don't allow people to do it legally under the watchful eye of someone that is trained for it, they will DIY it. And that has far more harmful effects on society. 

[quote=@SleepingSilence][color=ed1c24]"The state's “Death with Dignity Act Annual Report” for 2014 shows that the top reason is “losing autonomy” (Oregon Public Health Division 2015, 5). Concern about pain was not even the second or third reason: “Less able to engage in activities making life enjoyable” and “Loss of dignity.” It was ranked sixth out of seven, above only financial concerns, and included not only “inadequate pain control,” but also “concern about it.” These patients were not necessarily in uncontrollable pain themselves, however they were concerned about it (as are we all). But even that concern did not rank high on their list of reasons that they wanted to commit suicide. Even if the line drawn is unbearable pain, how can that be restricted to only physical pain? Who can judge that mental anguish is not unbearable pain? Or that economic distress (or anything else that causes anguish) is not unbearable pain?"[/color][/quote]

Anyone can judge that. It's a judgement call. It's not factual. The line has to be drawn by the government and the doctors. But, really, doctors don't deal in financial pains. I certainly think mental anguish can be considered unbearable pain. Losing autonomy, lessened ability to do activities... etc. and loss of dignity are all very very valid reasons to request euthanasia to me. And that's really what this all comes down to - it's how you feel about the situation. You can say 'hurr they don't care about the pain' and all I can say is, ok, so what? because I don't think pain is the sole criteria that we should be looking at. Whether a doctor agrees with that is not really my problem - most of all it's not my problem because for him there are plenty of doctors who do [i]not[/i] share his views.

[quote=@SleepingSilence]The idea that making assisted suicide legal, we somehow only be restricted to "unbearable pain" cases, is naive at best and delusional at worst. You want to make that legal? You're going to have to deal with the oncoming slippery slope that becomes "anyone who pays" maybe even "anyone over 18, because free care." maybe children or teenagers with disabilities.[/qupte]

Again, we have made assisted suicide legal, we have restricted it to criteria that so far to my knowledge include only unbearable pain. [url=https://www.rijksoverheid.nl/onderwerpen/levenseinde-en-euthanasie/vraag-en-antwoord/wie-kan-om-euthanasie-vragen]Here you can read who can request euthanasia.[/url] I will summarize it for you since you obviously can't read Dutch (your summation of Dutch euthanasia would've been much more accurate if you did, and you'd certainly not have used it as a case study..). Here's the people who can request euthanasia.

[list][*] A minor aged 12 and up can [b]request[/b] euthanasia. Up to 16 years it requires agreement from parents.
[*] 16, 17 year olds decide for themselves to [b]request[/b]. The doctor is required to take parents into account, but agreement is not required.
[*] 18 and up can [b]request[/b] it on their own. 
[*] Demented people (people with a lessened capability mentally) can put in a euthanasia [b]request[/b].
[*] Euthanasia can [b]not[/b] be [b]requested[/b] by family members. They can however bring the patients will to light that states they want to be euthanized under x conditions.
[*] Foreign Dutch(wo)men can [b]request[/b] euthanasia.[/list]

Notice how I [b]boldened[/b] the word request a few times? That's because a request doesn't have to be granted. There are criteria that [i]need[/i] to be legally qualified. Lawsuits have already been filled and won over these that have proven doctors were inadequately in control of the criteria. So, there are legal checks and balances.

[quote]De arts moet onder meer de medische geschiedenis van de patiënt kennen. Op basis daarvan moet hij tot de overtuiging kunnen komen dat de patiënt uitzichtloos lijdt. Ook moet de arts vaststellen dat de patiënt goed heeft nagedacht over het verzoek. En dat het lijden voor de patiënt ondraaglijk is.[/quote]

"The doctor needs to know the medical history of the patient. On the basis of that he needs to be convinced that the patient will suffer without an end in sight. Also, the doctor must confirm that the patient has thought about the request very well. Finally, the suffering must be unbearable to the patient."

After the euthanasia has been performed, they must immediately make notice of this to the municipal coroner. [url=https://www.euthanasiecommissie.nl/toetsingsprocedure]Read more about that here.[/url]

There are legal punishments if a euthanasia isn't performed according to standard. For euthanasia this is maximum 12 years (about equal if not greater than manslaughter) and for assisted suicide it's a maximum of 3 years (long time for our justice system). 

There are some things that don't fall under euthanasia law; a doctor ceasing a treatment on request of the patient, a doctor deciding not to perform a medically useless treatment, or a doctor that uses increasingly heavy medication to alleviate the pain with the trade off that the patient dies quicker. [url=https://www.rijksoverheid.nl/onderwerpen/levenseinde-en-euthanasie/euthanasie]Read more about that here.[/url]

[quote=@SleepingSilence]Since I'll never get you to admit, your idea comes from emotion and nothing more.[/quote]
I don't really see your problem with emotional arguments. They're just as valid as yours, especially when discussing emotional matters such as suffering, death and euthanasia. These are not decisions people make lightly which you seem to think otherwise of. That is fine - you can pretend to be rational as long as you want and you will continue missing the core of the argument. 

[quote=@SleepingSilence]Can I at least grasp what type of suicide is "not bad" to you?[/quote]

I have spoken about one type of suicide and one type only, so I don't think it is hard to imagine what suicide isn't bad to me. Perhaps you need additional help because you are special - it's euthanasia and assisted suicide. But, this is why... 

[quote=@SleepingSilence]You want suicide bombers to have a right to do it?[/quote]
.. is such a dumb argument. I never said this. It's disgusting hyperbole. I'd almost think you were trying to make it look like I support suicide bombings, but I know you're not quite mentally capable of mental gymnastics like that, so I'll just assume you were trying to make some idiotic point here.

[quote=@SleepingSilence]People who jump of bridges and make their deaths public?[/quote]

They're dead. I don't think it matters whether they had a right to do it or not. But perhaps if euthanasia were legal and they could prove they were suffering, they wouldn't have to, yknow, jump off a bridge and make their deaths public DIY style. Maybe.

[quote=@SleepingSilence]Just assisted suicide?[/quote]

Yes. And euthanasia. [quote=@SleepingSilence]All suicide should be legalized and judged since all of it should be treated with the same?[/quote] Preferably not, but that is your input. Also, treated with the same.. same what?

[quote=@SleepingSilence]My point is, you want assisted suicide?[/quote] I already have it. [quote=@SleepingSilence]You get the transgender communities suicide rate to maybe go up to well over 50%.[/quote] I don't think we have. I don't think we will either. They don't meet the criteria. :) [quote=@SleepingSilence]You get people arguing in favor of killing people with down syndrome, or autism.[/quote] We had those before euthanasialaws as well and they were just as retarded then as they were now. But there has not been an increase in the amount of these people we have. [quote=@SleepingSilence]You get people that die from diseases they were only told they have.[/quote] No they won't because they don't meet the criteria. [quote=@SleepingSilence]Because you're arguing not for defending those that take their own lifes, but that all people should have a right to commit suicide.[/quote]

I'm not. Nice strawman, loser.

[quote=@SleepingSilence](and I assume that's what you want, since you're pro-abortion and correctly pointed out this the same, "this is inconvenient for me" so I have the right to eliminate the problem issue.)[/quote]

I am in fact pro-life but because I'm not a controlling asshole I vote pro-choice because it's not my kid and not my body. I don't see that has anything at all to do with euthanasia, but I'll play ball. I don't think it's inconvenient to me (what is precisely? Your point is entirely lost on me here. Maybe if you wrote more coherently....) 

[quote=@SleepingSilence][hider=The literal physician I'm "parroting"]
I am a physician. Part of my job is to help people die in comfort and with dignity. But I do not want to help you, or your daughter, or your uncle commit suicide. You should not want me to. I urge you to oppose physician-assisted suicide: it represents bad ethical reasoning, bad medicine, and bad policy. I am going to concentrate on the first of these lines of argument. Ilora will take up the latter two.

We strongly support the right of patients to refuse treatments and believe physicians have a duty to treat pain and other symptoms, even at the risk of hastening death. But empowering physicians to assist patients with suicide is quite another matter—striking at the heart not just of medical ethics, but at the core of ethics itself. That is because the very idea of interpersonal ethics depends upon our mutual recognition of each other's equal independent worth, the value we have simply because we are human. Some would have you believe that morality depends upon equal interests (usually defined by our preferences) and advance utilitarian arguments based on that assumption.4

[color=ed1c24]But which is morally more important, people or their interests? As Aristotle observed, small errors at the beginning of an argument lead to large errors at the end.5 If interests take precedence over people, then assisting the suicide of a patient who has lost interest in living certainly is morally praiseworthy. But it also follows that active euthanasia ought to be permitted. It also follows that the severely demented can be euthanized once they no longer have interests. They can also freely be experimented upon as excellent human “models” for research. It also follows that infanticide ought to be permitted for infants with congenital illness.

Many would see these conclusions as frightful, but this is not just a slippery slope. They all follow logically from arguing for assisted suicide on the basis of maximizing personal interests. So if you do not believe in euthanasia for severely disabled children or the demented, you might want to re-think your support for assisted suicide. At least if you want to be consistent.[/color]

People often argue that they need assisted suicide to preserve their dignity, but that word has at least two senses. Proponents use the word in an attributed sense to denote the value others confer on them or the value they confer on themselves. But there is a deeper, intrinsic sense of dignity.

Human dignity ultimately rests not on a person's interests, but on the value of the person whose interests they are; and the value of the person is infinite. I do not need to ask you what your preferences are to know that you have incalculable worth, simply because you are human. Martin Luther King said that he learned this from his grandmother who told him, “Martin, don't let anybody ever tell you you're not a Somebody” (Baker-Fletcher 1993, 23). This some-bodiness, this intrinsic worth or dignity, was at the heart of the civil rights movement.

It does not matter what a person looks like, how productive the person might be, how others view that person, or even how that person may have come to view herself. What matters is that everybody, black or white, healthy or sick, is a somebody. Assisted suicide and euthanasia require us to accept that it is morally permissible to act with the specific intention-in-acting of making a somebody into a nobody, i.e., to make them dead.

Intentions, not just outcomes, matter in ethics. Intending that a somebody be turned into a nobody violates the fundamental basis of all of interpersonal ethics—the intrinsic dignity of the human.

Our society worships independence, youth, and beauty. Yet we know that illness and aging often bring dependence and disfigurement. The terminally ill, especially, need to be reminded of their value, their intrinsic dignity, at a time of fierce doubt. They need to know that their ultimate value does not depend upon their appearance, productivity, or independence.

You see, physician-assisted suicide flips the default switch. The question the terminally ill hear, even if never spoken, is, “You've become a burden to yourself and the rest of us. Why haven't you gotten rid of yourself yet?” A good utilitarian would think this a proper question—even a moral duty.

As a physician who cares for dying patients, however, I am more fearful of the burden this question imposes on the many who might otherwise choose to live, than the modest restriction imposed on a few, when physician-assisted suicide is illegal.

Assisted suicide should not be necessary. Pain and other symptoms can almost always be alleviated. As evidence, consider that pain or other symptoms rarely come up as reasons for assisted suicide. The top reasons are: fear of being a burden and wanting to be in control (Oregon Public Health Division 2015, 5).

You may ask, “Why shouldn't I have this option?” And yet we all realize that society puts many restrictions on individual liberty, and for a variety of reasons: to protect other parties, to promote the common good, and to safeguard the bases of law and morality. For example, we do not permit persons to drive when drunk, or to freely sell themselves into slavery.

Paradoxically, in physician-assisted suicide and euthanasia, patients turn the control over to physicians, who assess their eligibility and provide the means. Further, death obliterates all liberty. Therefore, saying that respect for liberty justifies the obliteration of liberty actually undermines the value we place on human freedom.
[/hider][/quote]

Okay, someone disagrees with me. No harm no foul. He's free to think that. Like I said, for him there are plenty who don't feel this way. :)