Over the past year, increased regulatory pressure in multiple regions like UK OFCOM and Australia's eSafety has led to higher operational costs, including infrastructure, security, and the need to work with more specialized service providers to keep the site online and stable.
If you value the community and would like to help support its continued operation, donations are greatly appreciated. If you wish to donate via Bank Transfer or other options, please open a ticket.
Donate via cryptocurrency:
Bitcoin (BTC):
Ethereum (ETH):
Monero (XMR):
Loving dad who was homeless after Universal Credit failure took his own life
Thread starterJojogu
Start date
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly. You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
The thing is with these cases is that the government policy is usually the very final straw, the tipping point if you like - quite often the suicide is multi-factoral, for example a person loses their job, a loved one dies, their partner leaves, they start drinking, they slide into depression, they become ill
*then* the government slaps a big punitive slab of destitution and homelessness on them because they failed at being a Good Citizen and we must Balance The Books.
It's not an oversimplification in my view to state that punitive policies regarding healthcare, welfare and housing are linked to a number of suicides in the UK, it's been widely (but not loudly) reported on.
It's worth remembering that situations like this rarely seem to affect those who were fortunate enough to be born wealthy, they are policies which are implemented by design to effect punitive measures on the poorest and essentially weakest in society, those without a voice, without clout, without a grain of institutional power. Offering them a Community CTB Kiosk would be a further act of social murder, a eugenics-but-compassionate, and as much as l would prefer an easier death I'd much sooner wrestle with my own courage and do it the hard way than have many more instances of policy-driven suicide.
As I said in the previous post, this is the difference between us. I don't have any wish to fight this system, as cucked as it may sound. I would add that I wouldn't want to take away someone else's ability to fight on, either. But it seems like you might be heading in the direction of preferring the unfortunates to be forced to fight if they can't kill themselves with a knife or rope. I'm not saying you actually do, but that's the consequence of not allowing more relaxed laws about this. People that suffer are forced to struggle on, even if they don't want to.
Inquests into suicide are publicly held in the UK and the number of times a suicide has taken place after a benefits sanction is not insignificant, l often feel those who stress the other factors above this, or are keen to observe the person's otherwise 'chaotic' lifestyle, do so for essentially political reasons.
Regarding the latter paragraph I've made clear my views on this many times, particularly regarding the broadening of euthanasia criteria and accessibility, it's only dragged up so routinely because for some on this website my opinion in this is apparently crucial and needs rigorously scrutinising as if it was legislature, and not just the opinion of some dickhead on the internet. You'll find whenever this argument rears it is generally conceded that there has to be *some* check or balance regarding euthanasia, which people either specifically outline with their own inclusion in mind, or with some vague hand-wave that is ultimately little better than what already exists. In that sense my view is probably the majority view yet for some reason it's seen as an outlier - and yes, if the choice is starkly between death-on-demand and what we have now, I'll take the latter, as imperfect as it is.
I must add here the reminder that l am actually suicidal, and when you talk of me "preferring the unfortunates to be forced" etc l do include myself in that.
You'll find whenever this argument rears it is generally conceded that there has to be *some* check or balance regarding euthanasia, which people either specifically outline with their own inclusion in mind, or with some vague hand-wave that is ultimately little better than what already exists. In that sense my view is probably the majority view yet for some reason it's seen as an outlier - and yes, if the choice is starkly between death-on-demand and what we have now, I'll take the latter, as imperfect as it is.
Would you argue for a change to euthanasia laws that would exclude yourself from being able to make use of it?
Why not simply make it accessible to every adult on request with a 2 year grace period and an exception for those who are terminally ill or those that are in such physical pain that they can't wait any longer?
Inquests into suicide are publicly held in the UK and the number of times a suicide has taken place after a benefits sanction is not insignificant, l often feel those who stress the other factors above this, or are keen to observe the person's otherwise 'chaotic' lifestyle, do so for essentially political reasons.
Regarding the latter paragraph I've made clear my views on this many times, particularly regarding the broadening of euthanasia criteria and accessibility, it's only dragged up so routinely because for some on this website my opinion in this is apparently crucial and needs rigorously scrutinising as if it was legislature, and not just the opinion of some dickhead on the internet.
Makes no sense to bring that up. We're just spending time by browsing the forum, everyone knows what we write won't change laws. If you don't want to discuss your views you can choose not to reply or just ask for people to not reply (granted, ymmw with that one).
You'll find whenever this argument rears it is generally conceded that there has to be *some* check or balance regarding euthanasia, which people either specifically outline with their own inclusion in mind, or with some vague hand-wave that is ultimately little better than what already exists.
Not sure how that is relevant, not that I mind. My own stance is that I don't exactly know the details about exactly what should happen; I just know that I want (at the very least) more relaxed laws regarding certain substances and things, also more relaxed laws around assisted suicide/websites/etc. I'm obviously not an expert here, but I don't think that's a hand-wave or a biased outline catering to my own needs (already sitting on a perfectly acceptable exit kit).
The majority view(s) of suicide (related issues) is, as you know, not the in-forum majority view of it. Depending on how you define your view you can get 99% or 9% to agree with you. Not that it matters how many agree with you. If you say that a grey area between executing five-year-olds that scraped their knee and forcing people to live in complete pain and terror with forced life extension is your view, then yes it is the majority view. However, if you say that you don't want all adults that are able to but alcohol/join the military/reproduce to be able to legally purchase peaceful suicide means, then you are probably in the minority here (and not on Facebook).
This is strange to me. Everyone will handle things differently and suffer in different amounts and ways. The marathon runner says: "Everyone run 100 laps around the building, I'm doing it too so it's fine."
You may consider the last part strange but it was a necessary reminder imo, given you interact with me as if I'm some kind of outsider here and fail to understand the perspective of the "unfortunates". I do hold that perspective, only mine is a realistic one which does not lend itself to magical thinking.
And yes, l did mean in-forum majority view. Even those who begin their argument with YAY EUTHANASIA FOR ALL soon revise it to YAY EUTHANASIA FOR ALL (BUT WITH ILL DEFINED QUALIFYING CRITERIA), you know this because you've seen it and acknowledged it elsewhere. My position has been consistent so l don't see why it's considered an outlier just because l think death-on-demand is the sign of an unhealthy, not compassionate society. This is not "forcing unfortunates" to struggle on, our right to suicide is absolute.
You may consider the last part strange but it was a necessary reminder imo, given you interact with me as if I'm some kind of outsider here and fail to understand the perspective of the "unfortunates". I do hold that perspective, only mine is a realistic one which does not lend itself to magical thinking.
I think you missed my point. I thought that it was strange that you'd "force" (don't actually want to use such a strong word here) others to endure something just because you want to/can endure it. That was the point of the marathon runner thing.
And yes, l did mean in-forum majority view. Even those who begin their argument with YAY EUTHANASIA FOR ALL soon revise it to YAY EUTHANASIA FOR ALL (BUT WITH ILL DEFINED QUALIFYING CRITERIA), you know this because you've seen it and acknowledged it elsewhere.
Even if you were the only person in the world to hold whatever your opinion is, it does not matter. My point is not that you're in a minority and are therefore wrong.
I agree with this. I don't enjoy our society and would also wish for it to be better. But since it's not; I'd like for people that are suffering, and can't just get it done with a shoehorn and a piece of gum, to not have governments interfere with their means and information. Not saying you do, btw.
Goes against what you said before, no? Now, I have heard you say that everyone can ctb before, and it just doesn't work for like that. This is just a fact, some people need a peaceful method or they just won't be able to do it. Same with the marathon example/thing, just because you can pull something off doesn't mean others can. Some literally need assistance to die, and their reasons may not be enough for most people to accept their wishes.
You say that the "right" is absolute. But it means nothing if someone that you think has "the right" can't actually die.
Again, l literally *am* somebody who is only still alive because l don't have the required courage to ctb. This is different to literally *can't* ctb. Even in my situation l do not make the argument that l should be able to demand someone else kills me. You present my argument back at me as if l do not understand the perspective of someone desperate to make that final step but is held back by something within, the reality is l *am* that person.
Also no I'm not sure what goes against what I've said before, as far as I'm concerned I've been pretty consistent and, as with deflationary's earlier effort, this seems a deliberate conflation to achieve a "gotcha" than a realistic summary of my (actually pretty uncomplicated) position. Again, I'm unsure as to why this position, which you yourself previously acknowledged as being not particularly different to that of other users when you read the wonderful "euthanasia for all" thread, is the one held to highest scrutiny. Ask those who rapidly switch from EUTHANASIA FOR ALL to EUTHANASIA FOR SOME why their arguments waver, personally l think acknowledging that "a truly compassionate society would be one which provides a physician to inject me with death without asking questions" is such an obviously and fundamentally flawed position it is not something which really warrants detailed scrutiny. I'm certainly not the only person on here to hold this view, yet it's weird that I'm the only one ever challenged upon it in this way.
It is known that hundreds of people on UC maybe linked to CTB. Now that I left the DWP I can say that the system was chaotic in my time. I believe It was the brainchild of the Labour government during their tenure of power but it hit hurdles and continued to evolve under Cameron 's government. I never knew chaos could be so organised like this, but the point i make is this. : The needs of the sick were often overshadowed by the vision setdown by Whitehall office, and its crimply shirt, civil service egg heads, who were more motivated by principals than they were with people in need. I doubt if anyone of these eggheads actually had direct dealings with a case.
A year ago an op I was close to CTB because he was broke and being evicted the next day, would become homeless. It's sad he didn't have no one near him to give him a roof. Sorry about your dad.
Again, l literally *am* somebody who is only still alive because l don't have the required courage to ctb. This is different to literally *can't* ctb. Even in my situation l do not make the argument that l should be able to demand someone else kills me. You present my argument back at me as if l do not understand the perspective of someone desperate to make that final step but is held back by something within, the reality is l *am* that person.
Also no I'm not sure what goes against what I've said before, as far as I'm concerned I've been pretty consistent and, as with deflationary's earlier effort, this seems a deliberate conflation to achieve a "gotcha" than a realistic summary of my (actually pretty uncomplicated) position. Again, I'm unsure as to why this position, which you yourself previously acknowledged as being not particularly different to that of other users when you read the wonderful "euthanasia for all" thread, is the one held to highest scrutiny. Ask those who rapidly switch from EUTHANASIA FOR ALL to EUTHANASIA FOR SOME why their arguments waver, personally l think acknowledging that "a truly compassionate society would be one which provides a physician to inject me with death without asking questions" is such an obviously and fundamentally flawed position it is not something which really warrants detailed scrutiny. I'm certainly not the only person on here to hold this view, yet it's weird that I'm the only one ever challenged upon it in this way.
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
