Alexei_Kirillov
Waiting for my next window of opportunity
- Mar 9, 2024
- 1,038
After my experience with a "wellness check" and an involuntary psych ward stay (two separate occasions), I wrote a letter to my provincial elected representative to express how unjust the treatment of suicidal people in our society is. To be more specific, I took issue with the current law, which stipulates that the state can intervene if someone is threat to others or themselves. I was nuanced about it and did highlight that I understand why in cases of, for example, psychosis, keeping someone in a hold for a limited amount of time could be beneficial to them, but it makes no sense to lump all "people who represent a threat to themselves" into one bucket.
My decision to attempt CTB was not impulsive and was something that had been in the works for months already at that point. There was no reason why I should've been held in a psych ward with people of various other mental disorders, and I am hardly the first to have this experience. I expressed that I believe the state has no business intervening in cases where the person is of sound mind. Won't reprint the entire thing here but that was the gist of the letter.
This was the response I got (translated so sorry if it's a little clunky):
Just wanted to share because I thought the response was really telling as to how society, including our elected representatives, view suicide. It makes me despair as to how long it will take to see progress on right-to-die if "life is precious and should be protected at all costs" is still the underlying belief on all sides of the political spectrum (in this case, my representative is from the left-most party in our legislature).
@TAW122 pinging in case this might interest you.
My decision to attempt CTB was not impulsive and was something that had been in the works for months already at that point. There was no reason why I should've been held in a psych ward with people of various other mental disorders, and I am hardly the first to have this experience. I expressed that I believe the state has no business intervening in cases where the person is of sound mind. Won't reprint the entire thing here but that was the gist of the letter.
This was the response I got (translated so sorry if it's a little clunky):
(Emphasis mine).We thank you for sharing your opinion on the lack of choices people in suicidal distress are faced with.
The difference between people in psychosis and people who choose to end their lives in full conscience can be valid. And when we apply the famous <law name> in order to forcibly hold someone, the effects are real. We also believe that nobody is born with suicidal thoughts and in terms of prevention there is still much work to do. Additionally, in our eyes, every life has an important value, and on that note, there exist resources to talk about suicidal thoughts. We invite you to get into contact with the <suicide prevention centre> to talk more.
Just wanted to share because I thought the response was really telling as to how society, including our elected representatives, view suicide. It makes me despair as to how long it will take to see progress on right-to-die if "life is precious and should be protected at all costs" is still the underlying belief on all sides of the political spectrum (in this case, my representative is from the left-most party in our legislature).
@TAW122 pinging in case this might interest you.