I’ve thought of going to Vegas and playing everything on red and proceed with suicide. I think it would be epic but would prefer a suicide that is more humane. People should just allow suicide by administration from a machine in a hospital. What society does now for people that suffer is so irrational, I might as well go to a church and be told to pray for things to get better because that is exactly what mental health professionals do with some drugs thrown in to distort reality. People that want suicide are rational and suffer from a reality that doesn’t favor them.
Does anybody else find this kind of response patronizing? The parent said nothing about being in pain. The parent posted a completely rational statement. Here someone comes along trying to sound as though there is some moral or intellectual superiority to the opposite action and that this person needs help of some kind.
Perhaps we would have more humane suicide options if society were to stop regarding suicide as some kind of dysfunctional behavior. There are plenty of rational reasons to commit suicide, and there are plenty of cases where not committing suicide seems rather irrational.
The comment did not feel even slightly "compassionate": it felt like a cold, dispassionate template, the kind of thing read off by someone who knew they should care but didn't _really_, followed by a phone number.
Part of what makes it so _not_ compasssionate is how "lazy" the thought is; FWIW, so far _no one_ in this discussion of this issue has mentioned the OP's website: there is essentially a suicide note on it right now, claiming they have already died. The attached blog is all about suicide, and goes into their issue.
They have a protected Twitter account, a deleted Facebook, apparently Google+ (is that still a thing?), LinkedIn, GitHub, and Instagram... I have sent a message via Instagram (but the account is empty, so maybe entirely unused and abandoned).
Do you mean the website of Mikita Brottman, the author of the attached article? I viewed her website and I didn't see the suicide note. Can you link please?
No: the person whose comment started this thread, the comment with the suicidal fringe to it which caused someone else to leave the "call this hotline" comment which then led to the argument that led to my comment.
As you’ve already conceded that there are few but existing rational reasons to commit suicide, the next question is who gets to decide what reason is rational and what gives them the right to decide that for someone else?
We could start with "Do at least 1/3 of the population think it's justified?" I believe that puts depression on the "no" side and painful terminal illness on the "yes" side with extremely large margins. Work from there to refine the criteria.
That is indeed a difficult question. I doubt a perfect answer is possible. Existing suicide-assisting organizations e.g. in Switzerland typically rely on individual assessments based on extended dialogue with the person wishing assistance and their doctor.
> Does anybody else find this kind of response patronizing?
Yes, though not at all for the reasons you stated. The canned suicide hotline/cheery bullshit/"you can talk to me if you're sad!1!" is absolutely awful, and not usually what a depressed person talking about their depression on the internet needs to hear. It shuts down the conversation in a way that no one can reasonably argue with, and gets the well meaning asshole who copy pasted a few phone numbers into a text box a bunch of internet points, and little else.
It's true that this sort of direct approach is likely ineffective for many depressed people, but it is also unlikely particularly detrimental.
As someone who has fixated on and attempted suicide in the past, I now feel like that decision would have been a grave mistake. So I am glad things like the Suicide Prevention Hotline exist and are advertised by smug internet assholes because I think they do help some of the people who may be blundering into a bad decision.
I've heard horror stories. Hotlines being required by the US to call emergency services on mention of suicide, which leads to forceful loss of freedom and medical and ambulance bills that put the caller in a spiral of debt.
I honestly don't see it. From where I stand, he's trying to provide useful information to someone who one can (very reasonably) assume might be of help.
First sentence doesn't have to be correct, but can't hurt to empathize first.
Spot on. I don't believe anyone who claims not to have contemplated suicide; it's everpresent in the news and entertainment. It always has been, too. If anything, not having thought through some of those eventualities is short-sighted.
> This comment is a negative contribution to the discussion.
You think giving parent resources for help is "a negative contribution to the discussion"? Wow. Don't let your clinical word choice fool you, that's an incredibly toxic response.
> People should just allow suicide by administration from a machine in a hospital.
Very bad idea.
> People that want suicide are rational and suffer from a reality that doesn’t favor them.
That is provably not true in all (probably most) cases.
Apart from the fact that for very many people, suicidal thoughs and actions are transient, leaving them very happy that it was not easy to follow through to completion, there is the matter of moral hazard: situations where people who would profit from someone's death could reinforce or even induce suicidal thoughs in that person.
I do consider myself of sound mind (but what do I know am I a doctor? /s) and am at least currently happy. But I do never want to die in pointlessly extended agony, unable to think because the painkillers of my disease are fogging my mind like a bad dream. Or withering away in an old peoples home because the kids are living in far away countries.
Not everyone buys the idea that everything will be better tomorrow. It should be up to the individual to decide how they go. In my case I see only 2 options: a sudden unforeseen death or suicide at a point of time and place and method in which I deem appropriate.
Nobody should tell others how they are allowed to go. And since I had no control over how I came into this world at least there is with some luck the possibility of me going out under my terms. Not sure how somebody would want to deny that right, or automatically label suicidal people as depressed or mentally unstable.
Optimists will simply never learn. It's another form of extremist or elitist thinking. We were conditioned to always be optimistic 24/7 (nobody openly pessimistic will pass a job interview, and if they do they won't have friends at work). That conditioning is passed on to kids, because without that skill they will either grow up writing philosophy books for a fringe genre or end up homeless.
In my experience optimism isn't something that leads to long term happiness. Not unless a strong dose of cognitive dissonance is already present allowing the individual to disengage with the fact that we are killing the planet that supports us. Tomorrow won't be better than today, that is just an illusion.
For anyone not afraid to explore dark subjects I highly recommend Nethescurial by horror writer Thomas Ligotti (this is his only philosophical non-fiction work).
> But I do never want to die in pointlessly extended agony, unable to think because the painkillers of my disease are fogging my mind like a bad dream.
Yes, that is the case where you can get pretty broad consensus that suicide should be an available opion.
> Or withering away in an old peoples home because the kids are living in far away countries.
I don't think you can really assess how you would actually feel in such a situation.
> Not sure how somebody would want to deny that right, or automatically label suicidal people as depressed or mentally unstable.
Because, as I wrote before, the vast majority of suicidal thoughts and actions are not based on objectively bad and unescapable circumstances.
> Optimists will simply never learn. It's another form of extremist or elitist thinking.
Exactly the same can be said about pessimism. It's a lazy way to avoid responsibility for your own life and at the same time cultivate an empty feeling of superiority.
if one decides to crash into the far end wall in a car park, when nobody else is around to get hurt, then why not?
impacting other lives with your death is not responsible and something I would relate to mental problems. Also leaving yourself to be found by friends, family or splattering yourself in a public place, or risking that a jogger finds you, are reckless and ignorant acts. it has nothing to do with exercising your rights over your live/death, when that impact others, does it?
There is also the question of how your suicide affects your environment. Who will you leave behind and how are they going to take it. Will you simply disappear hiking, or fishing, and no body will ever be discovered? Or will they find you in a hotel and there is a good-bye note. Will you need a note if everyone knows how you intend to go one day or will you keep it a secret until the end. A lot of moral dilemmas in every corner. But unless death comes quickly and unexpectedly in another way there are potentially 20-50 years (depending on age) to come up with a grand plan that uniquely fits to the a persons situation.
Replace the machine with reasonable, assisted suicide and there is actually a fair chance that it can relieve some people from alot of pain while preventing abuse.
For example there is a swiss organisation called "Exit" [1] which operates in this manner.
>That is provably not true in all (probably most) cases.
There are plenty of counterexamples: People who suffer from a condition which causes substantial chronic pain, those who wish to time their passing in order to minimize financial harm to their family, etc.
Just watched "The Sea Inside" - a true story. It makes the case for suicide in a very moving manner. I believe that for anyone who stops to think about it, it is clear that there are other situations where there is suffering, and quite often there is no viable solution. Those who claim that there are always options better than death are naive (or intentionally harming others). I'm always amazed by the arguments they think up to defend their philosophical position.
People in this thread keep talking about suffering. I would like to disambiguate: suffering is not pain. Suffering is focusing on the pain and assuming that we should not have pain (and being lost in the idea that they should somehow be free of how they feel).
There is a lot of stuff about mental resiliency (and what to do with chronic pain - emotional and physical) that talks about how to deal with pain.
> quite often there is no viable solution.
There might not be a 'solution' to removing pain. Pain is a fact of life. Its what we do with it that matters.
A community or individual may hold values which include freedom from pain as an entitlement. Please don't impose pseudo-Buddhist misinterpretations on others.
If they are young or if they are old and fragile? After certain age and health combo getting bedridden is a slow death sentence. The concept of coup de grace is not new. We may argue where it is applicable, but I think it has place in our society.
Life is a game, so a person should be able to quit on their terms.
