If you could be a God...

To show the absurdity of trying to save the non-existent from 'missing out' on life. It behooves you to explain who exactly is missing out and in what realm they reside. And having to constantly solve problems is an 'advantage' over never having any problems or wishing for any improvement?

The young man in my link did everything right that he could have, considering that he lived with his parents. He would have successfully died if not for the fact that his mother thought it was unusual that he would have left the house at night and called the police based on the fact that he had borderline personality disorder. He wasn't 'saved' because he chose an ineffective method or failed to execute it correctly, and prior to the hanging he had been attending college and was at the top of his class (thus further attesting to the fact that he wasn't 'confused' or unable to think straight). Nobody would try to kill themselves in the way that he did if they didn't fully intend to die.

Nobody is saying that you shouldn't be entitled to crisis care which is in alignment with your atavistic philosophical beliefs; the only point that I'm arguing is that I should be entitled to access care which is aligned with my philosophical beliefs, which I'm capable of expressing lucidly and coherently. As far as I'm concerned, you should even have the right to sign a form to waive any rights that you have over your own body in the event that you end up being persuaded by the 'wrong' philosophical beliefs later in life, or you are unfortunate enough to be on the receiving end of some of the most brutal harms of which you've been so dismissive when suffered by others. What you're arguing for is for me not to have the right to invest my own welfare and bodily integrity in my own philosophical convictions. This is a violation of the separation of church and state, because the government should not be allowed to dictate what philosophical or religious beliefs people are allowed to invest their own welfare in. No innocent 'vulnerable' party is harmed by me (or anyone like me) giving a lucid and coherent account of what I think life means and I why I think that it would be rational to end my existence, then being administered with a lethal dose of Nembutal.

Certainly the last 2. The first one is just a cheap shot at my autism, which is a disability. And you have the same temperament with anyone who trenchantly disagrees with you, including accusing people of being paedophiles or sympathising with child molestors, as in this very thread.

Right...so what drives your crusading zeal to the rescue mission to 'save' inanimate matter (whether in the form of unborn and unconceived hypothetical children, or the corpse of someone who was suffering from mental illness) from 'missing out'?

No, it's the mandatory requirement to solve a set of problems that someone else thought you needed to solve, even though neither you nor the problems existed before some inconsiderate so-and-so thought they needed to come into being.

I don't hate everyone and everything. And you only post hateful messages on here as well and when you're arguing against hate, you try to fight hatred with hatred. You also seem to spend every waking hour posting on this forum, peddling hatred and sowing conflict, which seems to belie your rhapsodies about the wonders of life and love for the human race. I'm normally rather polite to everyone with whom I share exchanges, and maintain a calm demeanor. I'm not standing up for anybody, merely seeking to illustrate the fact that you struggle to have a civil disagreement with anybody. And as for the medication quip, what specific medications would you suggest, and to ameliorate what specific medical condition?

You want to deny people the right to assisted suicide in order to save them from transitioning to unharmable inanimate matter and 'missing out' on their long shot of a 'recovery'.

I don't want to abuse anyone ('utterly' or otherwise), and I don't want anyone killed either. What I want is to prevent people from creating more need machines to be harmed. In terms of demeanour, you come across as far more hateful than me. Nobody's blocked me because I follow them around with hateful insults; as far as I've been told, anyway. You claim that humanity is a wonderous and miraculous collective; but yet your interactions on this board betray that just about everyone has committed some thought crime or other which renders them beyond the pale, in your eyes. So who and where are all these wonderful and pure humans, innocent of all thought crime, about whose virtues you are rhapsodising? 

And even when that approach has been tried for 30 years and the doctors can't make any more suggestions for therapeutic interventions, you still want to keep trying all the things that have failed. And all because you can't come to grips with your own mortality and the fundamental futility of life itself.

None of that stuff is an end unto itself. Countries don't usually go to war for the express purpose of killing and maiming as many innocent civilians as possible. The fact that innocent people get killed is usually undesirable but necessary collateral damage towards obtaining a greater good (I'm not saying that I am pro-war, just using this as an example). I want to do whatever is necessary to end the cycle of harm and imposition, because the harm that would be caused in ending it would be as nothing compared to the devastation that would ensue from failing to do so. And I'm not perturbed by being vilified by a person on the Internet. There are more than enough real things to be worried about in the world. Also, if you actually started to assess the beliefs and actions of the majority of the world's population, you'd find that the large majority of them have committed an unforgivable thought crime (by your reckonings) and a sizeable chunk of them are doing very real and very deliberate harm to others.