Over the Wikipedia Editorial Team and (Assisted) Suicide

When Wikipedia editorial teams stop information of this kind, they do something awful to the World:
Background for the Intellectual Defence
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? Let's see! One list of arguments can be found here: http://philosophyblog777.blogspot.no/2012/06/assisted-suicide-final-argument-pro.html[50].(The rest is coming...)
Troubles in the World: Fx. the Wikipedia article of "Assisted suicide" FAILS to include basic information such as "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? Let's see!" Even if the body text has been placed under "Defence for Legalising Assisted Suicide", same thing happens! Now, if these people act under malicious intent, simply for securing the "existence of torture", then damnation on them, because that is to be evil in the hardest sense you can find on Planet Earth (and all attached to it)! Guns up, people! There's going to be trouble more! Cheers!
The very link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assisted_suicide !

I've also added the above under a different header without success!
There is a note more to consider, for ending this, and it is:
The implausible slippery slope argument from the opposition is this,
- the "Slippery Slope" defeats itself (by fake ethics) by protecting hugely crazy people who have absolutely no problems accepting the devastation brought by it on human dignity and human worth/decency and how torture inflicts terror and deep fears, even sublimely, on the rest of the population.
- secondly, and more directly, the Slippery Slope never accounts for formal qualification, while citing this Nazi program "so seriously", "as if their whole bodies would be immersed", such as obtaining 3-year therapy after the age of 18 before getting the approval for suicide!
- "The Slippery Slope", in addition, has no concept or credible prediction for how many people Slippery Slope will affect outside those already, virtually, queued in! When 36 000 people die from guns (or gun deaths) in USA every year, would the rest of USA therefore get killed by guns next year? NO! Why is this? Because troubles need to obtain in certain ways first! This has a direct analogy to legislated suicides in that this counters the very Slippery Slope argument and the way these disgusting people (complex, as with traits of psychopathy and mis-a/-ophiles) remain active in society, "defending humanity" still! There is no doubt where I want: (Assisted) Suicides need legal defence/legislation and practice urgently so that people can achieve greater respect and have the possibility to escape the great horrors of the World today, thus moving the World up one step in terms of dignity and worth.
Note1: As people enter the academic discussion, they inherently commit to honesty!
Note2: They can call themselves doctors or whatever! They have been defeated! (That is, they're not "born" with credibility.)

So, surely, suicide remains controversial, not to say the fishes on wanting people's tails, and I ask you therefore to take CARE and put much attention toward personal security (as a warning sign by the behaviour shown above)! Cheers!