Venting [Article] Bad argument: You are not a reliable witness (to your own circumstances)!

[TAW122]

In a recent thread titled "Pro-lifers make suffering unbearable by one simply loophole they exploit!", one of the premises and talking points in that article was about how they used the premise of "one is not a reliable witness to oneself when it comes to making (permanent) decisions with regards to the right to die. In that particular article, I mainly focused on the three premises (including the not a reliable witness premise) and explained how they managed to abuse those things and cause us more suffering.

Anyways, the title of this article refers to when CTB preventionists, anti-choicers, pro-lifers often use that line to dismiss, gaslight, or otherwise invalidate one's suffering. More specifically (truncated due to title length), their claim is "you aren't a reliable witness to your own circumstances in which you could accurately predict what the future holds or what is best for you, therefore, you cannot make a [permanent] decision on the right to die!". This is, of course, not only infuriating and insulting towards the recipient (the person who wants their suffering to end, the right to die on their own terms), but also even more nefarious is how they (the anti-choicers, preventionists, etc.) cite how they do not feel comfortable and/or goes against their morals and ethics to allow for voluntary euthanasia, assisted suicide, and medical aid in dying. Therefore, effectively keeping most of us trapped in sentience and suffering, then leaving us to DIY with whatever risky, brutal methods that we find and most likely CTB'ing in gruesome ways, sometimes failing and ending up with permanent damage.

Anyways, in this article I'm going to go into detail and debunk this claim that preventionists, anti-choicers, pro-lifers like to use.

One of the circular logic that pro-lifers like to use is how if one is suicidal then they are irrational and cannot make decisions for themselves, which is far from the truth. It is like an unfalsifiable statement that cannot be disproven because the premise is the same as the conclusion. That is indeed not only a problem that bypasses logic, but also an invalidation tactic used to silence or otherwise dismiss any opposing viewpoints that may be presented.

Then there is a sense of hypocrisy with the argument as well, because outside of the topic of the right to die, many pro-lifers (even in self-help and other motivational topics or content), they often claim that only oneself knows themselves the best (implying that oneself is indeed a reliable witness to one's own life as it's obvious: Only the person living their life knows (and experiences) their life the most accurately). However, the anti-choicers/pro-lifers basically "conveniently" ignore this piece of logic and treat it like it doesn't exist when it comes to the right to die. This effectively becomes a matter of the anti-choicer/pro-lifer wanting to uphold their atavistic morals and beliefs rather than applying logic and seeking out the truth. It is not a quest for enlightenment nor truth and peace, but rather a quest for conquest, subjugation, and validation of the status quo.

Therefore, in conclusion, the "not a reliable witness (and thus one cannot self-report or self advocate)" is rather a banal argument often used to discredit, disempower, and/or otherwise relegate another to the status of an infant, unable to make decisions for oneself! Of course, that coupled with other anti-choice policies in tandem only create a hellscape that de-facto forces those who don't wish to live to be trapped in living by denying them the right to die. Which is the situation we face even in the most liberal countries in the world only reserve it for very narrow circumstances, namely terminal illnesses and those with severe, debilitating illnesses, and only after a long, arduous process with many steps and hoops to jump through.

 

[karmaisabitch]

In a recent thread titled "Pro-lifers make suffering unbearable by one simply loophole they exploit!", one of the premises and talking points in that article was about how they used the premise of "one is not a reliable witness to oneself when it comes to making (permanent) decisions with regards to the right to die. In that particular article, I mainly focused on the three premises (including the not a reliable witness premise) and explained how they managed to abuse those things and cause us more suffering.

Anyways, the title of this article refers to when CTB preventionists, anti-choicers, pro-lifers often use that line to dismiss, gaslight, or otherwise invalidate one's suffering. More specifically (truncated due to title length), their claim is "you aren't a reliable witness to your own circumstances in which you could accurately predict what the future holds or what is best for you, therefore, you cannot make a [permanent] decision on the right to die!". This is, of course, not only infuriating and insulting towards the recipient (the person who wants their suffering to end, the right to die on their own terms), but also even more nefarious is how they (the anti-choicers, preventionists, etc.) cite how they do not feel comfortable and/or goes against their morals and ethics to allow for voluntary euthanasia, assisted suicide, and medical aid in dying. Therefore, effectively keeping most of us trapped in sentience and suffering, then leaving us to DIY with whatever risky, brutal methods that we find and most likely CTB'ing in gruesome ways, sometimes failing and ending up with permanent damage.

Anyways, in this article I'm going to go into detail and debunk this claim that preventionists, anti-choicers, pro-lifers like to use.

One of the circular logic that pro-lifers like to use is how if one is suicidal then they are irrational and cannot make decisions for themselves, which is far from the truth. It is like an unfalsifiable statement that cannot be disproven because the premise is the same as the conclusion. That is indeed not only a problem that bypasses logic, but also an invalidation tactic used to silence or otherwise dismiss any opposing viewpoints that may be presented.

Then there is a sense of hypocrisy with the argument as well, because outside of the topic of the right to die, many pro-lifers (even in self-help and other motivational topics or content), they often claim that only oneself knows themselves the best (implying that oneself is indeed a reliable witness to one's own life as it's obvious: Only the person living their life knows (and experiences) their life the most accurately). However, the anti-choicers/pro-lifers basically "conveniently" ignore this piece of logic and treat it like it doesn't exist when it comes to the right to die. This effectively becomes a matter of the anti-choicer/pro-lifer wanting to uphold their atavistic morals and beliefs rather than applying logic and seeking out the truth. It is not a quest for enlightenment nor truth and peace, but rather a quest for conquest, subjugation, and validation of the status quo.

Therefore, in conclusion, the "not a reliable witness (and thus one cannot self-report or self advocate)" is rather a banal argument often used to discredit, disempower, and/or otherwise relegate another to the status of an infant, unable to make decisions for oneself! Of course, that coupled with other anti-choice policies in tandem only create a hellscape that de-facto forces those who don't wish to live to be trapped in living by denying them the right to die. Which is the situation we face even in the most liberal countries in the world only reserve it for very narrow circumstances, namely terminal illnesses and those with severe, debilitating illnesses, and only after a long, arduous process with many steps and hoops to jump through.

I agree with some points! Look at me! I'm just so tired of waking up every morning to work and by the time I come back I'm so tired to even do anything I literally fine to die right now. You think people care about each other? No they don't human being is very selfish none cares if we suffer.

 

[FuneralCry]

I find it disgusting when pro-lifers insult people like that but anyway no matter what they say suicide will always be very rational in my case. For me suicide is rational to escape from pointless and meaningless suffering in an existence that was always undesirable in the first place that can potentially get so torturous way beyond how one can even imagine. It's insane to label people as irrational for wanting to choose when they die especially as nobody can suffer from not existing.

 

[TAW122]

I agree with some points! Look at me! I'm just so tired of waking up every morning to work and by the time I come back I'm so tired to even do anything I literally fine to die right now. You think people care about each other? No they don't human being is very selfish none cares if we suffer.

You made good points and yes, most human beings are very selfish indeed. Which points do you not agree with if you don't mind me asking?

I find it disgusting when pro-lifers insult people like that but anyway no matter what they say suicide will always be very rational in my case. For me suicide is rational to escape from pointless and meaningless suffering in an existence that was always undesirable in the first place that can potentially get so torturous way beyond how one can even imagine. It's insane to label people as irrational for wanting to choose when they die especially as nobody can suffer from not existing.

Indeed, CTB is a very rational response to an existence that one never asked for to begin with and it's repulsive how prolifers often try to shame, interfere, or otherwise get in the way of pro-choice sentiments and actions. Bodily autonomy means very little to pro-lifers and it's no surprise that they only ever seek the truth when it conveniences them while ignoring truth and logic when it goes against their core beliefs.

 

[Forever Sleep]

I agree to a point. I think it is possible though to get very bogged down in a situation and not be able to see the wood for the trees. I think depression can play a part in giving us a particularly negatively skewed perspective of the world. Along with depression comes anhedonia so that the person is so exhausted and utterly disinterested in life that it just becomes a vicious circle. I think in some circumstances, a person may react impulsively because everything becomes too much for them and they most likely don't have enough support to cope.

That's not saying everyone can be helped though or- should be forced to be 'helped'. Plenty of people here know they are suffering from depression amongst other things. Plenty are getting treatment- some, extensive treatment stretching back years- even decades. Presumably, if they're still thinking seriously about killing themselves, it can't be a resounding success! So- what are they supposed to do?

If a serious physical illness isn't treatable- people don't call those people crazy for wanting an end to their suffering. Why isn't it considered objective to want an end to suffering- no matter what kind of suffering that is? If people can't be helped or, can't help themselves- to their satisfaction, then they will continue to suffer- surely? So- that's the crux of it. Is that really what they want? People to continue to live but suffer?... Great.

Plus, I really don't think treatment should be forced on people- either for physical or mental conditions. Unless it can be proven that a person really is struggling with mental capacity, I really think people should have the right to choose. We're the ones having to go through it. Otherwise, who do our lives belong to?

Sometimes, I want someone to prove I'm insane. Although, I probably wouldn't enjoy the repercussions!

 

[TAW122]

I agree to a point. I think it is possible though to get very bogged down in a situation and not be able to see the wood for the trees. I think depression can play a part in giving us a particularly negatively skewed perspective of the world. Along with depression comes anhedonia so that the person is so exhausted and utterly disinterested in life that it just becomes a vicious circle. I think in some circumstances, a person may react impulsively because everything becomes too much for them and they most likely don't have enough support to cope.

That's not saying everyone can be helped though or- should be forced to be 'helped'. Plenty of people here know they are suffering from depression amongst other things. Plenty are getting treatment- some, extensive treatment stretching back years- even decades. Presumably, if they're still thinking seriously about killing themselves, it can't be a resounding success! So- what are they supposed to do?

If a serious physical illness isn't treatable- people don't call those people crazy for wanting an end to their suffering. Why isn't it considered objective to want an end to suffering- no matter what kind of suffering that is? If people can't be helped or, can't help themselves- to their satisfaction, then they will continue to suffer- surely? So- that's the crux of it. Is that really what they want? People to continue to live but suffer?... Great.

Plus, I really don't think treatment should be forced on people- either for physical or mental conditions. Unless it can be proven that a person really is struggling with mental capacity, I really think people should have the right to choose. We're the ones having to go through it. Otherwise, who do our lives belong to?

Sometimes, I want someone to prove I'm insane. Although, I probably wouldn't enjoy the repercussions!

Interesting points you brought up, and I will address each one individually.

So the first one is yes, while someone being upset can affect their decision, it shouldn't be weaponized against their to discredit their plight! What I mean by this is where if one is suffering due to the circumstances they cannot change (nor wish to accept) this shouldn't be used against said person just to ignore their plight and relegate them to labels, diagnoses, and/or some incapable person of thinking. Additionally (maybe a slight tangent), the depression that people are referring to are the tired and old claim (which ironically, has even been disproven in the field of psychiatry) of 'chemical imbalance', but I believe that while those people do exist, a good deal of people who are depressed because of their predicament have good reason to, similarly to what you said about a "serious physical illness" that is untreatable and causes severe debility, and low quality of life.

Next, I agree with you and do think that help could be an option, but not forced upon the person, which sadly, in today's present day is still happening. People are still being forced to live de facto, by the denial and/or restriction of reliable, peaceful methods to end one's suffering, and worse yet, the government, people in charge, and moral busybodies (most of the normies and the masses) are seeking to intervene against and probe, profile, and/or scope out those who may potentially CTB, regardless of circumstance that said person is enduring or subjected to. I think that if 'help' was voluntary (and by this, I mean no threats of hospitalization (unless of course, said person poses an immediate risk of harm to others), coercion (go willingly or be physically, violently forced to go anyhow), or any kind of bombardment and cajoling of 'help), then that would certainly improve many things. Currently, because help is forced upon people regardless of whether they agree, like, or consent to it, it does more harm than good in the long run. So as a consequence, people are concealing their true motives (especially ones who really wish to die by their own hand), taking unnecessary risks, and/or end up DIYing whatever method they choose and sometimes, causing more damage to unwilling participants which all could have been avoided or greatly prevented had there been legal processes to guarantee one to be able to peacefully and reliably check out. This is why I think the idea of CTB clinics are one of the solutions, with of course stringent safeguards to ensure that the amount of abuse is minimal or very unlikely.

Finally, the most important point, of sound mind. I define and recognize this criteria as simply being that a person is aware and understands the repercussions of their decision as well as being able to consent to the decision that they are making. That's all of sound mind is as far as my criteria is concerned. However, many pro-lifers and anti-choicers twist it and in the case of the right to die, many anti-choicers and pro-lifers often try to undermine, dismiss, and/or invalidate the person by claiming that said person is just incapable of making a rational decision to end one's suffering (maybe the rare exception of a terminal illness). There is no greater insult and censorship than to shut someone down by claiming that they don't know what is best for them, especially when it is they who live their own lives (not the pro-lifer, not the anti-choicer, not the third party), and is rather tyrannical due to the unfalsifiable claim of the person being 'mentally ill' (and also circular logic). It is no surprise that dictators and tyrants love discrediting their opposition (just like pro-lifers and anti-choicers do alike) as there is almost no way to disprove that one isn't mentally ill just by such an unfalsifiable claim of 'if one chooses/elects to CTB, then they would automatically be deemed unsound of mind, and cannot make that decision'. Thus, by default, I reject such circular logic and such a claim as it is unfalsifiable by itself!

Anyways, this turned out to be a much longer response than I hoped for and hope these address all the points that you made in detail.

 

[Forever Sleep]

Interesting points you brought up, and I will address each one individually.

So the first one is yes, while someone being upset can affect their decision, it shouldn't be weaponized against their to discredit their plight! What I mean by this is where if one is suffering due to the circumstances they cannot change (nor wish to accept) this shouldn't be used against said person just to ignore their plight and relegate them to labels, diagnoses, and/or some incapable person of thinking. Additionally (maybe a slight tangent), the depression that people are referring to are the tired and old claim (which ironically, has even been disproven in the field of psychiatry) of 'chemical imbalance', but I believe that while those people do exist, a good deal of people who are depressed because of their predicament have good reason to, similarly to what you said about a "serious physical illness" that is untreatable and causes severe debility, and low quality of life.

Next, I agree with you and do think that help could be an option, but not forced upon the person, which sadly, in today's present day is still happening. People are still being forced to live de facto, by the denial and/or restriction of reliable, peaceful methods to end one's suffering, and worse yet, the government, people in charge, and moral busybodies (most of the normies and the masses) are seeking to intervene against and probe, profile, and/or scope out those who may potentially CTB, regardless of circumstance that said person is enduring or subjected to. I think that if 'help' was voluntary (and by this, I mean no threats of hospitalization (unless of course, said person poses an immediate risk of harm to others), coercion (go willingly or be physically, violently forced to go anyhow), or any kind of bombardment and cajoling of 'help), then that would certainly improve many things. Currently, because help is forced upon people regardless of whether they agree, like, or consent to it, it does more harm than good in the long run. So as a consequence, people are concealing their true motives (especially ones who really wish to die by their own hand), taking unnecessary risks, and/or end up DIYing whatever method they choose and sometimes, causing more damage to unwilling participants which all could have been avoided or greatly prevented had there been legal processes to guarantee one to be able to peacefully and reliably check out. This is why I think the idea of CTB clinics are one of the solutions, with of course stringent safeguards to ensure that the amount of abuse is minimal or very unlikely.

Finally, the most important point, of sound mind. I define and recognize this criteria as simply being that a person is aware and understands the repercussions of their decision as well as being able to consent to the decision that they are making. That's all of sound mind is as far as my criteria is concerned. However, many pro-lifers and anti-choicers twist it and in the case of the right to die, many anti-choicers and pro-lifers often try to undermine, dismiss, and/or invalidate the person by claiming that said person is just incapable of making a rational decision to end one's suffering (maybe the rare exception of a terminal illness). There is no greater insult and censorship than to shut someone down by claiming that they don't know what is best for them, especially when it is they who live their own lives (not the pro-lifer, not the anti-choicer, not the third party), and is rather tyrannical due to the unfalsifiable claim of the person being 'mentally ill' (and also circular logic). It is no surprise that dictators and tyrants love discrediting their opposition (just like pro-lifers and anti-choicers do alike) as there is almost no way to disprove that one isn't mentally ill just by such an unfalsifiable claim of 'if one chooses/elects to CTB, then they would automatically be deemed unsound of mind, and cannot make that decision'. Thus, by default, I reject such circular logic and such a claim as it is unfalsifiable by itself!

Anyways, this turned out to be a much longer response than I hoped for and hope these address all the points that you made in detail.

I completely agree with your point of view. I suppose I've always seen as the best case scenario that a person wanting to apply for assisted suicide with no chronic illness present (with the unrealistic idea that this would in fact one day be allowed!) that they would have a friendly, compassionate and supportive- not authoritatian assesment.

That- if the assessor thought they may have depression- that this would be gently suggested as a possibilty. Obviously, getting an idea of their medical history and things they'd tried in life too- if they were willing to talk about them.

I think it's kind of obvious- even here- if people are still open to trying things and I think this is where it could help to have someone else's perspective- who knows what resources are available. Some people simply don't want help though- or, they feel as if they've exhausted those options. I think most people here can articulate why or why not they're open to the idea of recovery. Surely- that shows competency?!! Logical reasoning based on past exeriences.

I completely agree with you too. The dumb arse system we've got at the moment where people are too afraid to even mention having ideation doesn't do anyone any favours!

 

[UKscotty]

Not sure I agree. I think those of us with mental ill health are not good at judging what is best for us. When you have depression, the result is generally you don't want to exist anymore.

When not depressed, generally happy and want to live.

I think those of us without constant depression see it clearer. We can see life at times without the fog there.

For someone who only knows depression, it's a lot more of a grey area I think.

 

[willitpass]

Not sure I agree. I think those of us with mental ill health are not good at judging what is best for us. When you have depression, the result is generally you don't want to exist anymore.

When not depressed, generally happy and want to live.

I think those of us without constant depression see it clearer. We can see life at times without the fog there.

For someone who only knows depression, it's a lot more of a grey area I think.

I'd argue that if someone lives with constant depression and has not been responsive to many treatments, why continue to make them suffer under the guise that they don't know what's best? If they have known nothing but depression for years despite seeking help, why should they have to continue living because they haven't had the luxury of a moment of clarity to think things through in a different stage of mind? That is a lot of pain to live through with no respite simply because someone "isn't in the right frame of mind". That's not to say someone whose been depressed and hasn't sought help should just go ahead and CTB, but some people live for years like this and are treatment resistant.

 

[TAW122]

I completely agree with your point of view. I suppose I've always seen as the best case scenario that a person wanting to apply for assisted suicide with no chronic illness present (with the unrealistic idea that this would in fact one day be allowed!) that they would have a friendly, compassionate and supportive- not authoritatian assesment.

That- if the assessor thought they may have depression- that this would be gently suggested as a possibilty. Obviously, getting an idea of their medical history and things they'd tried in life too- if they were willing to talk about them.

I think it's kind of obvious- even here- if people are still open to trying things and I think this is where it could help to have someone else's perspective- who knows what resources are available. Some people simply don't want help though- or, they feel as if they've exhausted those options. I think most people here can articulate why or why not they're open to the idea of recovery. Surely- that shows competency?!! Logical reasoning based on past exeriences.

I completely agree with you too. The dumb arse system we've got at the moment where people are too afraid to even mention having ideation doesn't do anyone any favours!

Thanks for the clarification and yes, I think that when someone has given a fair chance at recovery (not compulsory of course), then that's where one should be granted the right to die. It is rather a reasonable concession, but of course, in reality, we know that pro-lifers and anti-choicers just don't want to concede to the fact that there are people who are just really tired and done with life and want to be able to check out sooner than to endure possibly decades of additional old and tired treatments that lead to nowhere. It's the fact that there is no concession (pro-lifers and anti-choicers treat all the suicidal people the same, regardless of context, like suicidality is some disease or illness that must be cured, prevented) that we are constantly at disputes and conflict with pro-lifers as well as people (attempting to) DIY resulting in more collateral and unnecessary damage to unwilling third parties as a result. So yeah, until real changes are enacted at the fundamental level, including the change in attitude of the status quo when it comes to the right to die for people who are tired and done, have tried much and instead of perpetually denying them the right to die, but given them a peaceful exit, this is the consequence of our paternalistic, prohibitive society when it comes to the right to die (as you stated in the last sentence).

Not sure I agree. I think those of us with mental ill health are not good at judging what is best for us. When you have depression, the result is generally you don't want to exist anymore.

When not depressed, generally happy and want to live.

I think those of us without constant depression see it clearer. We can see life at times without the fog there.

For someone who only knows depression, it's a lot more of a grey area I think.

I don't really fully agree with what you said. So here is a scenario to consider (hopefully, this will make more sense as I put it into context)

Suppose we have a person named Fred, and he is a normal everyday, slightly above average person, maybe slightly athletic and has good aspirations. He managed to live a pretty standard life in terms of quality of life, went to college and earned a degree that helped him earn money and has had some relationships. He is single at the time and overall had a fairly average, but slightly decent life (not struggling financially, generally good relations with his friends and acquaintances, etc.). Then, at the age of 28, he suffered a tragic accident but survived. He was in an accident that left him without the use of his arms and legs, his body is in pain regularly and not only could he no longer perform his job that he worked hard, trained for, he is then dependent on healthcare workers and caretakers to get through his daily tasks. He was an avid outdoorsman, enjoying nature and being able to participate in running marathons and also other activities. He could no longer do that, even. He is then bound to a sedentary life and unable to pursue his aspirations and dreams anymore. Fast forward a few years later, his situation has not really changed much, and while he tried to get into other activities that did not require very fast reactions, the full use of his physical arms or legs, he did not find fulfillment in those. His doctors and caretakers tried to cheer him up, but the grim reality remains, he could no longer pursue the same things he used to enjoy, and he has gone through multiple therapists and mental health professionals, and no amount of psychiatric drug can magically change his predicament to give him the independence he desires. Knowing this, he asks for medical professionals to alleviate his suffering either by finding a cure (to no avail) or by asking to be voluntary euthanized, both of which are denied. He is also denied the ability to voluntarily stop eating and drinking in order to hasten his demise and end his suffering.

In reality, he is very likely to live in this predicament for decades to come, relying on others for basic daily tasks, and unable to pursue the things he once enjoyed. People who can relate to his situation know and understand that his situation is abysmal and couldn't even tolerate being in his shoes. Unless Fred is approved for medical aid in dying or is allowed to VSED (allowing nature to take it's course through voluntarily stopping eating and drinking), he will likely live in agony until natural causes or other cause of death outside of his wishes.

So given that scenario and based on your logic, are you telling me that the person named 'Fred' would then not be able to choose death despite his predicament being irremediably poor and just by the basis of his wish to die with dignity and end his suffering, he couldn't do so because his depression (caused by his predicament) clouds his judgment? That's the part I don't really agree with because if Fred (in my example) is presumably able to understand the decision and the consequences of death, then that alone should be indicative that he is of sound mind. Most people wouldn't even experience what Fred experienced, let alone tolerate it and to claim that because Fred wants to elect death instead of continuing to live, he must not be of sound mind (despite the 'depression' caused by the tragic accident and his subsequent severe debility that has no remediable solution to), is just cruel and unethical.

I'd argue that if someone lives with constant depression and has not been responsive to many treatments, why continue to make them suffer under the guise that they don't know what's best? If they have known nothing but depression for years despite seeking help, why should they have to continue living because they haven't had the luxury of a moment of clarity to think things through in a different stage of mind? That is a lot of pain to live through with no respite simply because someone "isn't in the right frame of mind". That's not to say someone whose been depressed and hasn't sought help should just go ahead and CTB, but some people live for years like this and are treatment resistant.

Good points and yes, I would personally support those who have suffered psychologically (not just physically) for an extensive period of time to be allowed to have an option. While there may be more safeguards than that of a physical and/or terminal condition, I think having that option instead of perpetually forcing said individual whose sole underlying condition is mental illness to endure however indefinite their suffering may be (years and decades). I think the 'treatment resistant depression' is one such good example to grant an individual that instead of constantly holding out and postponing the individual for finding peace through death in the rare chance that some "breakthrough" happens (which more than likely wouldn't happen, let alone happen in a reasonable, foreseeable timeframe - aka within said person's lifetime).

 

[karmaisabitch]

You made good points and yes, most human beings are very selfish indeed. Which points do you not agree with if you don't mind me asking?


Indeed, CTB is a very rational response to an existence that one never asked for to begin with and it's repulsive how prolifers often try to shame, interfere, or otherwise get in the way of pro-choice sentiments and actions. Bodily autonomy means very little to pro-lifers and it's no surprise that they only ever seek the truth when it conveniences them while ignoring truth and logic when it goes against their core beliefs.

Thank you so much!! Ofc I don't mind: I lost my son and this put me in both places the loved one who died and the left behind. I hate seeing my son suffering in life but if he's back to life I'll prob will tell him " don't make permanent decision for temporary problem" as much as I hate this life from the day I was born, living without my son killed me.. maybe I'm selfish or maybe because he was everything to me.

 

[TAW122]

Thank you so much!! Ofc I don't mind: I lost my son and this put me in both places the loved one who died and the left behind. I hate seeing my son suffering in life but if he's back to life I'll prob will tell him " don't make permanent decision for temporary problem" as much as I hate this life from the day I was born, living without my son killed me.. maybe I'm selfish or maybe because he was everything to me.

Since you are a parent and you lost your son, it really hurts and I can understand that a parent losing a child is a life changing and traumatic event. I'm sorry to hear about your loss. Anyhow, I don't think you are wrong for feeling whatever you are feeling and also your son is at peace and no longer suffering or faced with the harsh realities and cruelty of life itself.