TAW122
Emissary of the right to die.
- Aug 30, 2018
- 6,963
We have all heard from lawyers and even in certain crime shows or mystery novels (to a lesser extent) that never talk to the police, never answer questions without consultation of a lawyer, legal counsel, or just to remain silent during interrogations. This is pretty much commonplace advice that lawyers (even the ones on the Internet say to prospective and current clients) give to people.
Also, in a similar thread, I have stated that seeking mental health professionals (counselors, therapists, psychologists, psychiatrists, social workers, etc.) is similar to that of an interrogation, meaning that what you said can (and will likely) be used against you. While it is not like an actual interrogation where a suspected criminal is sat in an small room, with uncomfortable chairs, and an detective questioning the suspect, the interaction and encounter is very similar to that.
Anyways, so my main point in this thread I want to make is that when someone openly admits their suicidality on social media, IRL, or anywhere else on the Internet (outside of here), it is almost like self-incrimination. This is like having a brand, scarlet letter (metaphorically speaking) on your being that people can see and read off. The fact that there are (potential) civil consequences (ranging from involuntary treatment, forced lock up, and/or other invasive checks such as a welfare check into your day to day life and more) from admitting to suicidality makes it very similar to that of a suspected criminal incriminating him/herself in an interrogation by law enforcement. Therefore, it is not wise, or safe to even talk about suicide outside of this forum for the very reasons and risks that I've mentioned. By admission of suicidality to people IRL or outside of this safe haven is like admitting to a crime (that you either committed or didn't). No one should be willing to do that especially if they know the potential risks and consequences that can result from admission of suicidality to people IRL, especially mandated reporters (teachers, law enforcement, doctors, mental health professionals, clergy, etc.).
In my case, years ago when I enter a session with an MHP, I always assume that it's similar to that of an interrogation and be extremely careful of my wording. The same applies when I'm talking to anyone who is a mandated reporter and/or has power/authority over me. I see them more as a potential threat to my civil liberties as one misunderstanding can lead to a world of problems. Therefore, I parse every statement I make and am even more cautious and have my guard up when I interact with people like these. You just can't be too open or talk freely (without tension or relaxed) with them. They are also not your friends or on your side, they first and foremost, on the state's (government) and society's side and has those parties interest before they have theirs, let alone the patient's interests. Even with other people (not mandated reporters or people in a position of power/authority), I still exercise caution (albeit slightly less) when talking about taboo and sensitive topics. I also refrain from topics of death, suicide, and right to die for fear of a mishap causing an overly zealous concerned individual to sound the alarm and create unnecessary trouble. All in all, what I mean is that it isn't simply unsafe to admit to suicidality or even touch on said taboo subjects IRL and even much more dangerous with mandated reporters (who are required by law to report any findings or knowledge of danger, including to oneself).
Does anyone else see it this way?
Also, in a similar thread, I have stated that seeking mental health professionals (counselors, therapists, psychologists, psychiatrists, social workers, etc.) is similar to that of an interrogation, meaning that what you said can (and will likely) be used against you. While it is not like an actual interrogation where a suspected criminal is sat in an small room, with uncomfortable chairs, and an detective questioning the suspect, the interaction and encounter is very similar to that.
Anyways, so my main point in this thread I want to make is that when someone openly admits their suicidality on social media, IRL, or anywhere else on the Internet (outside of here), it is almost like self-incrimination. This is like having a brand, scarlet letter (metaphorically speaking) on your being that people can see and read off. The fact that there are (potential) civil consequences (ranging from involuntary treatment, forced lock up, and/or other invasive checks such as a welfare check into your day to day life and more) from admitting to suicidality makes it very similar to that of a suspected criminal incriminating him/herself in an interrogation by law enforcement. Therefore, it is not wise, or safe to even talk about suicide outside of this forum for the very reasons and risks that I've mentioned. By admission of suicidality to people IRL or outside of this safe haven is like admitting to a crime (that you either committed or didn't). No one should be willing to do that especially if they know the potential risks and consequences that can result from admission of suicidality to people IRL, especially mandated reporters (teachers, law enforcement, doctors, mental health professionals, clergy, etc.).
In my case, years ago when I enter a session with an MHP, I always assume that it's similar to that of an interrogation and be extremely careful of my wording. The same applies when I'm talking to anyone who is a mandated reporter and/or has power/authority over me. I see them more as a potential threat to my civil liberties as one misunderstanding can lead to a world of problems. Therefore, I parse every statement I make and am even more cautious and have my guard up when I interact with people like these. You just can't be too open or talk freely (without tension or relaxed) with them. They are also not your friends or on your side, they first and foremost, on the state's (government) and society's side and has those parties interest before they have theirs, let alone the patient's interests. Even with other people (not mandated reporters or people in a position of power/authority), I still exercise caution (albeit slightly less) when talking about taboo and sensitive topics. I also refrain from topics of death, suicide, and right to die for fear of a mishap causing an overly zealous concerned individual to sound the alarm and create unnecessary trouble. All in all, what I mean is that it isn't simply unsafe to admit to suicidality or even touch on said taboo subjects IRL and even much more dangerous with mandated reporters (who are required by law to report any findings or knowledge of danger, including to oneself).
Does anyone else see it this way?
Last edited:
