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!
Showing posts with label suicide. Show all posts
Showing posts with label suicide. Show all posts
Thursday, 28 June 2012
Tuesday, 1 May 2012
Legal Matters Concerning Suicides and Committing the Suicide
Now, let me tell you (a version, at least) of how easy I imagine it is (for some) suicide candidates (whether I am one or not is mutti-f*cking PRIVATE and I do not need "clarification advise from /this/ friend (psychologist)"): first, being invisible enough, and not being persecuted by a body of people, all included, with or w/o military/police resources and competence. So there you go... Some peo...ple spit at you and tell you to die, that is, to suicide... Yes, that is easy, given this "body of people", persecuting you (on informal level, of course, and "let's not forget the paranoid factors involved") by radio hunting these placed RFIDs by mini-surgery (while sedated, covertly or not) or placing the words around that movements on this person by information is wanted so that, you know, they blow the very (fragile and deeply personal) privacy of this person, making one's VERY PRIVATE considerations over chances, where these idiots sit there and "clip" the button for turning this consideration of this person falsely, so that this person can imagine that one falls prey to torture regardless or that the suicide is made under false premises, being wholly psychological (by these telepathic connections and under possible threat and danger of severe hospital torture! And YES, it's TRUE, this person is to carry out these considerations PRIVATELY and YOU HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH THEM!!! The very question is (well f*cked out of your consideration) only this person's own and evidently so, this person is always objective in this consideration and the only valid judge on one very own matter whether suicide is right or wrong!!! I hope you GET THIS, please!!! Being a victim in these circumstances is not easy and these f*cks ("#¤%¤%Y%&(&"¤&%&(%&&"#¤%, and the rest of the "99 swearing words") are equally despicable and subject to one's own criminal conscience of trying to wage such f*ck toward people, blatantly violating _fundamental_ human rights!!! Bye for now! [If I need support in critical terms? Maybe... Is it so hard for Amnesty Int. to "lift a poster"?!!!]
Note: First written to Facebook and another place here on this blog 27. April, 2012!
Sunday, 29 January 2012
Over "The Society"!
"THE SOCIETY": You know, there is a masquerade going on in the World and there are titles, there are also buildings and technology and science and other facts... this is what we call "society", contrary to common beliefs and on top of piezo-recharged electronics with senders and even magnetically rechargable devices on coil basis by induction, we have now entered THE HARD FACT OF George Orwell's "1984", but in a different form!!! Scream your complaints into the winds and declare yourself Sitting Bull, your efforts WILL still be in VAIN!!! (And try to get a decent lawyer too...!)
Note on Clairvoyance to Dr. Bem and brute immense physical threat (by hideous torture) for "strangling effect / difficulty to speak"!
Prove yourself as predator now! Eat or get eaten! Dog eats dog!
Note on Clairvoyance to Dr. Bem and brute immense physical threat (by hideous torture) for "strangling effect / difficulty to speak"!
Prove yourself as predator now! Eat or get eaten! Dog eats dog!
Monday, 3 October 2011
New Status to My Person
New Status to My Person
Various!Posted by Terje Lea 2011-04-07 23:26:43
On grounds of political suppression and corruption in general, by shady scheming of "metaphyscial" nature and outside normative ethics, I've accepted "Disability status" when suicide is the only other alternative! I hope for your understanding in light of this!
Indeed, in Norway, the tax lists are public, something I support for responsibility reasons, and the numbers there can only point to this fact. Thus, to Norwegians, this information is merely formal!
http://blog.t-lea.net/#post159
Various!Posted by Terje Lea 2011-04-07 23:26:43
On grounds of political suppression and corruption in general, by shady scheming of "metaphyscial" nature and outside normative ethics, I've accepted "Disability status" when suicide is the only other alternative! I hope for your understanding in light of this!
Indeed, in Norway, the tax lists are public, something I support for responsibility reasons, and the numbers there can only point to this fact. Thus, to Norwegians, this information is merely formal!
http://blog.t-lea.net/#post159
Saturday, 1 October 2011
Suicidal People and Sociology
Suicidal People and Sociology
Various!Posted by Leonardo F. Olsnes-Lea 2011-06-28 18:23:05
I hereby make the sociological assertion that ALL suicidal people are political victims! This is based on the common human fact that deep sorrow out of the blue is almost impossible to obtain in case studies and that this is not about missing out on the candies in the superficial understanding, i.e., literally the candies.
So the medical doctors may object to the blame put on them by responding with this notion of political victims simply because people have probably tried to get help in at least 200 separate instances, possibly this number is in exaggeration or not.
While the medical doctors are right, this doesn't make their honesty look any better when they are opposed to legal suicides, having the dubious credit of wanting to inflict full (mental) pain in, under this, usually, unexpressed light!
So, sociologists, where have you been when it's your job to tell these stories?!!! Because I'm inclined to think that these appeals to help must have gone several places, like to (unregistered) letters to Amnesty Int., Childcare Services and worries uttered to Police on grounds of possible illegal conditions!!! I find this serious and I expect delivery on it soon from now, if they are not already in place, that is, over the proper examinations/investigations!!! Yes?
Correction: obviously, this doesn't apply to the conventional, terminally ill people with conditions like Alzheimer's and Malignant Cancer. No, this applies to people with rather "undefined" mental illnesses like schizophrenia and depression. This first group of people is either way more likely to have their wishes to be fulfilled by informal rules on sedatives or other, such as travelling Dignitas to end their lives as their conditions are more definite.
Note: originally posted as http://blog.t-lea.net/#post221.
Various!Posted by Leonardo F. Olsnes-Lea 2011-06-28 18:23:05
I hereby make the sociological assertion that ALL suicidal people are political victims! This is based on the common human fact that deep sorrow out of the blue is almost impossible to obtain in case studies and that this is not about missing out on the candies in the superficial understanding, i.e., literally the candies.
So the medical doctors may object to the blame put on them by responding with this notion of political victims simply because people have probably tried to get help in at least 200 separate instances, possibly this number is in exaggeration or not.
While the medical doctors are right, this doesn't make their honesty look any better when they are opposed to legal suicides, having the dubious credit of wanting to inflict full (mental) pain in, under this, usually, unexpressed light!
So, sociologists, where have you been when it's your job to tell these stories?!!! Because I'm inclined to think that these appeals to help must have gone several places, like to (unregistered) letters to Amnesty Int., Childcare Services and worries uttered to Police on grounds of possible illegal conditions!!! I find this serious and I expect delivery on it soon from now, if they are not already in place, that is, over the proper examinations/investigations!!! Yes?
Correction: obviously, this doesn't apply to the conventional, terminally ill people with conditions like Alzheimer's and Malignant Cancer. No, this applies to people with rather "undefined" mental illnesses like schizophrenia and depression. This first group of people is either way more likely to have their wishes to be fulfilled by informal rules on sedatives or other, such as travelling Dignitas to end their lives as their conditions are more definite.
Note: originally posted as http://blog.t-lea.net/#post221.
Thursday, 29 September 2011
Between Suicide and Murder!
Between Suicide and Murder!
Various!Posted by Terje Lea 2010-12-31 06:14:19
As I feel swayed between suicide, in order to avoid a gruesome death, and suspected murder, possibly from long and painful medically assisted torture, I wonder if it's possible to make a human rights case on this? I mean, for how long do I bother to tolerate the torments of cold sweating, often failing personal hygiene, in fear for my life? If some members, as routine, of society are pinpointed for this on a subcultural level, it's devious indeed and should be resolved, a blatant ethical requirement! Yet I sense psychiatry is easily muting such claims for being hysteria and "fantasy"! Can I make a case and if so, how? Please feel free to submit responses! Cheers!
(There are also these possibilities for preparing a body or forging a medical report for making the death appear "gentle" and "natural", but I guess this is a cloud on the sky!)
The title refers to Søren Kierkegaards "Fear and Trembling", although I remember, falsely or truly, that the title has been "Between Fear and Trembling" on some editions.
(From the original blog: http://www.angelfire.com/realm/t_daemon_lea/blogT/index.blog/1418887/between-suicide-and-murder/.)
Note: originally posted as http://blog.t-lea.net/#post79.
for 7 timer siden
Just for justifiying my own views to the formulation of "these f*cking stupid people". Also note the date: 2010-12-31 06:14:19.
for 7 timer siden
Almost as if this "Jesus Christ" mental health service "wouldn't know" of the social worker, the contact with the Police and the lawyer! _So_ I STAND WITH WHAT I'VE WRITTEN!!! THIS COUNTRY IS MESSED UP, F*CKED IN THE HEAD, LOST ITS ABILITY TO DECENTLY LEAD (ANYTHING WHATSOEVER), THE RATIONALE IS GONE!!!!! (I'm not even going to ask you to sympathise!)
for 7 timer siden
The original date on the above document may be Saturday, 11. September, 2010! From my reference, What_is_writtenN16.html. These files have been listed before under "Deletion of the Blog..."
for 6 timer siden
By the black humour on a certain subset of people: "More than London [56 incl. 4 suicide bombers], not exactly Madrid [191], but 91 in Oslo, hmmm..., you have been good, that's respectable work!"
søndag kl. 21:51
The number is now, altogether, 76 and possibly 4 missing (unknown of latest). Technical, merely, there's not more to it!
for 6 timer siden
[One comment has been removed because it adds nothing!]
for 6 timer siden
I've been forgetting. I've also written about human rights violations in Norway (activist/vigilante group nr. 9, arbitrary number really). The Norwegian title (it's in fact in Norwegian) is "Menneskerettighetsbrudd i Norge - Aksjonsgruppe 9". But I've "closed" it because I intend to "move far away" and never return (for real).
for 18 timer siden
There used to be only Amnesty Int. and myself (appx.), but after a while a bunch of websites and groups emerged! You can check yourself.
for 18 timer siden
On media (in Norway): Let's not forget media hysteria some years ago on Satanists and how it all boiled down to a young man in a woolen gray sweater. Right, that's grey, not black! But we are heavy on the metal music! Black metal, yes? Even though, for being mere signal code/social code it has been f*cking pathetic!
for 18 timer siden
And the rumours, loosely mentioned and as much as Dagbladet writes it, of child-torturers specialists and other criminals of the hardest kind who are sent abroad (from Norway and after domestic training) just to incite the most sh*t they can do and make the most havoc and human devastation they possibly can!
for 21 timer siden
Norws... (or is it the Norw-s?)
for 21 timer siden · Liker
Terje Lea And you, you crazy idiot...! Shut up!!!
for 21 timer siden · Liker
Terje Lea Just for some underpinning data: why do young kids at 5-10 commit suicide? How are the standards and what are the numbers and quality of systems with Childcare Services (in Norway and elsewhere) and what about the adoption services? Enjoy! And have your meal too! :-)
for 21 timer siden · Liker
Terje Lea It should read: "child torturer specialists" or "child torture specialists".
for 18 timer siden · Liker
On torture: as ever there is an excellent "educative" movie by Charles Bronson by the name, The Evil That Men Do (1984). You sohuld see it. It may even be health to people as young as 16.
for 18 timer siden
For my own person, for how long am I supposed to say, under severe stress, that I'm HAPPY just so these psychological "experts" can have a "point"? Go and@££$$€€$$€$€$€$£$€$@£$@$$€€{€€{€£$$€$£££$£@@£@@ (yes, all that)!
i går kl. 17:19
Ohhh... so many currency symbols there, mr. Olsnes-Lea... Yes, if you go around there and think you can make a lot of money out of contempt and disdain... that's on YOU!!! So go ahead, you deluded f*ck and try it!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
i går kl. 17:25
Various!Posted by Terje Lea 2010-12-31 06:14:19
As I feel swayed between suicide, in order to avoid a gruesome death, and suspected murder, possibly from long and painful medically assisted torture, I wonder if it's possible to make a human rights case on this? I mean, for how long do I bother to tolerate the torments of cold sweating, often failing personal hygiene, in fear for my life? If some members, as routine, of society are pinpointed for this on a subcultural level, it's devious indeed and should be resolved, a blatant ethical requirement! Yet I sense psychiatry is easily muting such claims for being hysteria and "fantasy"! Can I make a case and if so, how? Please feel free to submit responses! Cheers!
(There are also these possibilities for preparing a body or forging a medical report for making the death appear "gentle" and "natural", but I guess this is a cloud on the sky!)
The title refers to Søren Kierkegaards "Fear and Trembling", although I remember, falsely or truly, that the title has been "Between Fear and Trembling" on some editions.
(From the original blog: http://www.angelfire.com/realm/t_daemon_lea/blogT/index.blog/1418887/between-suicide-and-murder/.)
Note: originally posted as http://blog.t-lea.net/#post79.
for 7 timer siden
Just for justifiying my own views to the formulation of "these f*cking stupid people". Also note the date: 2010-12-31 06:14:19.
for 7 timer siden
Almost as if this "Jesus Christ" mental health service "wouldn't know" of the social worker, the contact with the Police and the lawyer! _So_ I STAND WITH WHAT I'VE WRITTEN!!! THIS COUNTRY IS MESSED UP, F*CKED IN THE HEAD, LOST ITS ABILITY TO DECENTLY LEAD (ANYTHING WHATSOEVER), THE RATIONALE IS GONE!!!!! (I'm not even going to ask you to sympathise!)
for 7 timer siden
The original date on the above document may be Saturday, 11. September, 2010! From my reference, What_is_writtenN16.html. These files have been listed before under "Deletion of the Blog..."
for 6 timer siden
By the black humour on a certain subset of people: "More than London [56 incl. 4 suicide bombers], not exactly Madrid [191], but 91 in Oslo, hmmm..., you have been good, that's respectable work!"
søndag kl. 21:51
The number is now, altogether, 76 and possibly 4 missing (unknown of latest). Technical, merely, there's not more to it!
for 6 timer siden
[One comment has been removed because it adds nothing!]
for 6 timer siden
I've been forgetting. I've also written about human rights violations in Norway (activist/vigilante group nr. 9, arbitrary number really). The Norwegian title (it's in fact in Norwegian) is "Menneskerettighetsbrudd i Norge - Aksjonsgruppe 9". But I've "closed" it because I intend to "move far away" and never return (for real).
for 18 timer siden
There used to be only Amnesty Int. and myself (appx.), but after a while a bunch of websites and groups emerged! You can check yourself.
for 18 timer siden
On media (in Norway): Let's not forget media hysteria some years ago on Satanists and how it all boiled down to a young man in a woolen gray sweater. Right, that's grey, not black! But we are heavy on the metal music! Black metal, yes? Even though, for being mere signal code/social code it has been f*cking pathetic!
for 18 timer siden
And the rumours, loosely mentioned and as much as Dagbladet writes it, of child-torturers specialists and other criminals of the hardest kind who are sent abroad (from Norway and after domestic training) just to incite the most sh*t they can do and make the most havoc and human devastation they possibly can!
for 21 timer siden
Norws... (or is it the Norw-s?)
for 21 timer siden · Liker
Terje Lea And you, you crazy idiot...! Shut up!!!
for 21 timer siden · Liker
Terje Lea Just for some underpinning data: why do young kids at 5-10 commit suicide? How are the standards and what are the numbers and quality of systems with Childcare Services (in Norway and elsewhere) and what about the adoption services? Enjoy! And have your meal too! :-)
for 21 timer siden · Liker
Terje Lea It should read: "child torturer specialists" or "child torture specialists".
for 18 timer siden · Liker
On torture: as ever there is an excellent "educative" movie by Charles Bronson by the name, The Evil That Men Do (1984). You sohuld see it. It may even be health to people as young as 16.
for 18 timer siden
For my own person, for how long am I supposed to say, under severe stress, that I'm HAPPY just so these psychological "experts" can have a "point"? Go and@££$$€€$$€$€$€$£$€$@£$@$$€€{€€{€£$$€$£££$£@@£@@ (yes, all that)!
i går kl. 17:19
Ohhh... so many currency symbols there, mr. Olsnes-Lea... Yes, if you go around there and think you can make a lot of money out of contempt and disdain... that's on YOU!!! So go ahead, you deluded f*ck and try it!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
i går kl. 17:25
Pro and Con Arguments of (Assisted) Suicide
Pro and Con Arguments of (Assisted) Suicide
Posted: Tue Feb 02, 2010 11:58 pm; forum.philosophynow.org
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.)
(Note. 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.)
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.
PS: 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!
Posted: Wed Feb 03, 2010 10:26 pm; forum.philosophynow.org
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.
Posted: Thu Feb 18, 2010 11:14 pm UTC + 1 hour; forum.philosophynow.org
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").
Posted: Sat Sep 25, 2010 11:24 pm UTC + 1 hour; forum.philosophynow.org
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)!
Posted: Thu Jan 13, 2011 5:28 pm UTC + 1 hour; forum.philosophynow.org
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!
First published by Terje Lea and Leonardo F. Olsnes-Lea as "Issues from the Internet"!
Posted: Tue Feb 02, 2010 11:58 pm; forum.philosophynow.org
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.)
(Note. 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.)
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.
PS: 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!
Posted: Wed Feb 03, 2010 10:26 pm; forum.philosophynow.org
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.
Posted: Thu Feb 18, 2010 11:14 pm UTC + 1 hour; forum.philosophynow.org
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").
Posted: Sat Sep 25, 2010 11:24 pm UTC + 1 hour; forum.philosophynow.org
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)!
Posted: Thu Jan 13, 2011 5:28 pm UTC + 1 hour; forum.philosophynow.org
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!
First published by Terje Lea and Leonardo F. Olsnes-Lea as "Issues from the Internet"!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)