assisted suicide is wrong

OK so it seems as if were not going any where.This is my last argument so lets get this clear. Were just arguing the same points over and over again the same way in different words. This implies that one or the other doesn't understand each other fully. So first i will defend my arguments then give a short synopsis translate of this debate. First my opponent claims that i do not have an accurate source. i would like you all to look at the second round of this debate, and confirm that i do have a blue hilighted source. it seems as if my opponent did not catch that so here it is again. http://www.euthanasia.com... If you would like to claim my source innacurate, please provide another with statistics. PLEA FOR HELP (again) Next you go on to say that the eleven percent are different from the eighty-nine percent. since this IS assisted suicide, and they are all given the same situation, i don't see how 100% proof is really needed. This leads to the whole argument to doctors doing what their patients ask. Meaning that, if these doctors as the other ones, refused to comply with the patients, the remaining 11% would not go on to look for death. Again, though i am now going quite used to it with this opponent, he undermines by saying " You have just defeated yourself". this is really getting annoying, as i have already asked you to stop making assumptions about the debate. Wait until the debate finishes and PLEASE let the voters make that decision. Remember you are supposed to be trying to convince the judges(aka the voters) not me. SELFISHNESS-(again) MY OPPONENT- "If the patient truly has a good reason to, we should not stop them." Again and again i have argued this. I am trying to prove that the patients reasoning is NOT a good reason. but here we are again with no rebuttal... and yes i have read your argument. several times in fact. this is what i mean by 'were not getting anywhere' GOOD DOCTORS- MY OPPONENT-"I find it quite amusing that you do not realize that the remaining 11% should be allowed to have AS, and you want to stop it. You really contradict yourself here." Ok so your going to put your end of the deal on this 11%? so your going to that AS is RIGHT because 11% of the patients succeed in doing so? translate: The other 89% of the people were stupid for not committing AS. Obviously with such a vast number of people declining AS, theres got to be more than just Physical pain involved. If they are willing to get past it so easliy, and accept life for what it is. This makes them just like any other emotional suicidal person. Not much to stake your side of the odds on bud. YOUR STORY- So you just basically said that this is not worse case scenario. exactly what i was trying to prove. this is usually where you would say something along the lines of "You just defeated yourself" meaning your argument is less than meaningless, and i am going to disregard anything you say about from here on out. However, i am not like this, and instead i would say something like " look here my opponent has just suppported my case. Lets see if he makes a proper rebuttal against it in the next round." By me saying this, i do not undermine, or insult him, and grant him another oppurtunity to offer another arg. MY STORY- MY OPPONENT- "agree that is a very nice thing. There is a happy ending. However, this guy doesn't really have any reason to want death. He has every chance of rejoining society, as he does. This guy doesn't have much reason to want AS. However, again, you forget about those people who have a good reason to want it. Take a person with cancer. It is severe. No cure. The guy's going to die." Ok first off, have you ever lost your leg? i am pretty sure you'd be pretty down if it happened to you. and you also disregarded the fact that his wife left him, and his kids, etc. who are you to say that his pain is any less than some one elses? Well any way, My point was to prove that depression can be helped, and that even the patient who thinks life is just not worth it, can get over the sadness factor. Yes the guys going to die anyway, but what good will quickening the procedure do? If he still has time, and knows he still has time, he should make the best of it. MY OPPONENT- "This guy is confined to a bed, is fed through a tube, and can barely speak. He is in pain, and living hurts. He has no chance of recovery. He will die in 6 months. His family has to pay the bills, and it clearly hurts them financially. It also clearly hurts them emotionally, since they have to watch this person slowly die, knowing that they can do nothing about it. My opponent will say that this person should do something uplifting, to make him feel better. Well I ask my opponent, how much can you do, confined to a bed, unable to speak, fed through a tube, and in constant pain? What kind of uplifting things can you do?" What can he do you ask? he can be there for his family, and friends, who obviously don't want him dead. I am sure paying the bills for six more months, would not hurt the family so bad as to where they would rather have him die. Unless he is on life support, which would be totally ridiculous. SELFISHNESS 2- MY OPPONENT-"What is more selfish, to not let your loved ones die in dignity, or to force them to live out their painful death?" DIE IN DIGNITY??? your saying, that asking for some one else to end your life, somewhere involves dignity? i think not. And i think we have already covered the pain issue... MY OPPONENT- "But if in AS the family actually benefits, for reasons I have posted and for reasons I'm going to have to defend, then AS is justified" How is it beneficial? arguments you have already posted? like the sick one about financial debt? again, i am sure this patients life is worth more than money. Are you implying that it would be better to save money than to save a life? If that was the case, our world would be in deep turmoil. FINANCIAL PAIN- MY OPPONENT- "Example: Jill is ill. She cannot eat without feeding, and cannot walk. Her family wants to help her. Their choices are between an electric wheelchair that costs $2000, a regular wheelchair that costs $1000, and a fully automated wheelchair, which functions as a bed, desk, and everything. You could live out of that chair. It costs $10000. The family, with tight finances, decides to go with the regular wheelchair." You have proved no point here. In the end Jill still got the wheelchair did she not? Just because it is not as good of quality as what she could have aqquired, the family, with love still bought her a wheel chair for her better benefit. Which proves my point more than yours. And any way, even if the family does not have enough money to support the patient, the doctors would not just kill the patient. And there is other options besides. 1:make a wish foundation 2: friends support 3: Other relatives 4: school funding etc. I could go on. They could get enough money to help the patient out of his condition with these factors. EMOTIONAL PAIN- MY OPPONENT-"It is the choice between a death with dignity, and by your own choice, or a death by slow painful loss of life, as my opponent advocates" I do not ever recall advocating 'A slow painful loss of life'. If i have please let me know where. But if i remember correctly i do remember stating that there is pain medicine which provides the cease to this problem. And taking pain medicine, would not get you addicted to it into an overdose, because pain medicine such as novacaine etc will not cause the patient to be addicted. And there is simple numbing procedures to boot. VALUE OF LIFE MY OPOPNENT-"If anything, it means that you are a brave person, since you are willing to face death in the eye and choose your own end." ok so every person in the world who chooses there own death is now brave? Sorry i am out of characters, but the rest of my arguments are predictable