Discussion No, suicide prevention is not to keep you paying taxes

[_Gollum_]

I've seen this claim a lot on this site so I thought I'd address it.

Suicide prevention is not about the government wanting to keep you as a wage-slave so that they can get your tax dollars. It's much more simple than that. The main reason why 99% of people are against suicide is because 99% of people have an innate pro-life bias. This is true across cultures and time.* Now, we could discuss why they have a pro-life bias, and opinions can reasonably differ—my personal view is that it's evolutionarily useful—but most pro-lifers haven't even thought that far about it. They just know that death = bad (which necessarily means suicide = bad) and life = good.

Those who have thought about it a little more will often say that suicide should be prevented because of the possibility of having a good life in the future, and to them, having an enjoyable life is the highest good, so they don't want you to be deprived of that possibility, especially if you're young.

I doubt it ever even occurs to most people that the reason you should stay alive is to pay taxes; if that was the case, then why would they be so insistent on locking you up in a psych ward—where you can't work—even for extended periods of time, even indefinitely? You aren't providing any value in that situation, you are just taking up resources. If anything, if suicide prevention was a scheme to bolster economic value, they'd be encouraging people to kill themselves because suicidal people tend to be less productive, or even negatively productive (ie. they take more than they give).

Even when we look at the subset of cynical politicians in particular, they would want to prevent your suicide not so much to keep you as a wage-slave (as previously mentioned, suicidal people tend to make unproductive workers), but so that they don't have a bunch of angry family members making a stink about it in the media and then voting for the other guy come next election — or worse, starting costly lawsuits!

If you want to advocate for universal right-to-die, you need to understand why people are against it in the first place. We'll only make progress if we can convince people that life is not always good, and death is not always bad.

TLDR: suicide prevention at its most fundamental level arises from the belief that death is bad and life is good.


*Some cultures have sanctioned suicide (no pun intended) for collective reasons (ex. to preserve honour), but AFAIK there are no societies that have condoned suicide for purely personal reasons.

 

[brokenspirited]

I doubt it ever even occurs to most people that the reason you should stay alive is to pay taxes; if that was the case, then why would they be so insistent on locking you up in a psych ward—where you can't work—even for extended periods of time, even indefinitely? You aren't providing any value in that situation, you are just taking up resources. If anything, if suicide prevention was a scheme to bolster economic value, they'd be encouraging people to kill themselves because suicidal people tend to be less productive, or even negatively productive (ie. they take more than they give).

Their purpose is to punish people, to make an example of them. Their aim is deterrence.

 

[Forever Sleep]

I absolutely agree with you when it comes to suicide prevention. I think that's to keep parents and voters from giving them a hard time. I also agree that- as you say- the majority of people are indeed pro-life. Meaning, they probably tend to 'side' with the bereaved families of those who have taken their own life. They don't want that to happen to them so, I imagine they are all for suicide prevention.

I also agree that a fair number of people who are suicidal likely aren't paying taxes. They seem more likely to be receiving benefits in fact.

However, you don't need to pay in yourself to generate money for your government or MP's personally. Think how much money big pharma generates for them. They probably even donate generously to political parties. Sick and depressed people generate the need for all those money making drugs so- maybe they'd prefer unwell people to stick around and play that role for them.

I also agree that it's publicly more acceptable that our governments (are supposed to) look after people who are struggling. Not kill them off! Whether they do or not is another matter.

Where I would cast suspicion on the tax payer argument would be in regards to assisted suicide. I'm what might be termed a 'high functioning' suicidal person. I work and pay my taxes. I don't have much of a history when it comes to health issues and (failed) treatment. Let's say they bring in assisted suicide and begin to make it available to more people. Is it likely they would ever make it available to someone like me? (In my current state.) I doubt it. Partly because all the pro-lifers would be up in arms that 'healthy' people shouldn't be killing themselves. I think part of it is because I'm able to contribute though. I doubt they would allow even a small proportion of the healthy and employed population to kill itself. I don't see how they could afford it.

 

[Pale_Rider]

Of course you are right about the bias. They have great lives, and couldn't fathom taking their own life's is the jist of it I suppose.

 

[NeverReallyHere]

I think you're correct when it comes to why ordinary members of the public are against suicide. I think it gets a little more complicated when we're talking about why the State and the apparatuses which serve it are so commited to suicide prevention. After all the State has no qualms about killing people, or allowing people to die, when it suits its purposes, so a natural pro-life bias is not a satisfactory explanation. We can see also that the tax/wage slave explanation is not satisfactory either since many suicidal people are unable to work for various reasons, and in fact these people are often viewed as a drain on society by the State. Personally I would put it down to two things: firstly, a need to be seen to reflect the desires of a populace which has that aforementioned "pro-life bias," and secondly, a need to exert a level of control over the populace. After all, how does one control a person who is willing and able to end their own life?

 

[Wolf Girl]

Of course you are right about the bias. They have great lives, and couldn't fathom taking their own life's is the jist of it I suppose.

You absolutely do not have to have a great life or be happy to be alive to be pro-life. I worked in suicide prevention for years and I would go home every night after my shift to cut myself and make suicide plans. I first found r/SanctionedSuicide during that time. I have been told by people I worked with during that time that I'm the only reason they're still alive (and no, they weren't upset with me for helping them survive, they were grateful).

 

[Dejected 55]

Pro-life bias is a bit of an illusion though. Consider...

All the older folks in "old people" homes not being taken care of by their families or even friends. Once you get past a point of usefulness to society, the "pro-life" crowd goes silent with regards to your quality of life or survival.

Born with a birth defect that makes life difficult for you? Or suffer some permanent crippling injury? You're less useful to society, and the "pro-life" crowd isn't super interested in going out of their way to help you live better.

Homeless? Fuck you! You're lazy and don't deserve help from the "pro-life" crowd either.

Children in poverty? The "pro-life" crowd will fight to make sure your mother carries you to term and births you, but they suddenly give fuck all when it comes to food, clothing, place to live, education, health care, etc. for you.

I call BS on the "pro-life" bias, frankly. IF they aren't directly benefiting from you in some way, the "pro-life" people don't give a shit about you.

 

[kopebaldy]

I'm sure the people on the ground are believing they're helping. But I doubt the machine will pump funds into something that doesn't benefit them financially.

Even if you can't pay taxes, you still have value as a show piece, the "look how much we care ab people, don't you want to do business with us" or something like that, marketing is important.

Also, raising a slave up to working age is expensive ya know, you can't just discard that investment without trying to fix it first aka psych ward.

Even the slave can't be "fixed", you can use it as a bad example, nothing unites people better than a common hatred.

Idk, maybe I'm too cynical and bitter to see the good in people who keep trying to prevent me from finding peace.

 

[klantedklaw]

Sounds like something the IRS would say ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)

 

[_Gollum_]

However, you don't need to pay in yourself to generate money for your government or MP's personally. Think how much money big pharma generates for them. They probably even donate generously to political parties. Sick and depressed people generate the need for all those money making drugs so- maybe they'd prefer unwell people to stick around and play that role for them.

Good point; a repeat customer is worth much more (bonus points if they can get you on multiple meds at once). I think the main way big pharma tries to generate profit though is just by expanding the definition of "mentally ill" to include pretty much everyone (ex. doctors will prescribe psychiatric medication for totally normal reactions to life events, like the death of a loved one or a breakup). The pool of people who fundamentally want to live but who are struggling is much bigger (and therefore more profitable) than the pool of people who just want to die.

Where I would cast suspicion on the tax payer argument would be in regards to assisted suicide. I'm what might be termed a 'high functioning' suicidal person. I work and pay my taxes. I don't have much of a history when it comes to health issues and (failed) treatment. Let's say they bring in assisted suicide and begin to make it available to more people. Is it likely they would ever make it available to someone like me? (In my current state.) I doubt it. Partly because all the pro-lifers would be up in arms that 'healthy' people shouldn't be killing themselves. I think part of it is because I'm able to contribute though. I doubt they would allow even a small proportion of the healthy and employed population to kill itself. I don't see how they could afford it.

Yeah, I'm very pessimistic about the possibility that they'll ever allow us "healthy, functional" people to access MAID when we still have something to "contribute." I guess there's an argument that since our societies kept us safe and educated and well-fed (well, at least mine did), we owe something back. Or that, as you alluded to, they need all hands on deck if they want to keep the country afloat -- especially with the aging population problem. And so in that sense your early death impoverishes everyone else. Of course, these arguments are hard to swallow, given that we never wanted to exist in the first place!