I've somewhat alluded to this in a previous post, but I wanted to talk about it in a slightly different way here.
Obviously suicide is a societal taboo. And I don't agree with that. I think it is possible to make that choice in a rational and thoughtful way where you are quite justified in making it. However, I also think equally that's not always the case. Sometimes people do rush into it and if they hadn't done it, they could've lived long and happy lives. Or people do go through significant suffering, but could have been helped and gotten better. I think society can try to sort out which is which, and in a more compassionate society it should, but I also think ultimately it's hard. And really only the person can genuinely make that choice for themselves.
But I want to focus on a specific word here. And that word is "could." They "could have been helped and gotten better."
Because I think that word, really, has two different meanings in this context. And both are important.
There's the "could" in the sense that "if they hadn't killed themselves and had instead found the help they'd been looking for, or pressed on to recovery, etc. then they would have gotten better." This is simply about a person's life being in a position that was not hopeless at all. Where they, if they'd continued living, could have found their way out of that situation in practice. And would have.
But then there's another could. This is the "could" in the sense of "they could have been helped and gotten better if society gave them the help they needed." And this, I think, is a more important "could" here.
Because that first "could" is really only speculative. Don't get me wrong, it can be important in showing someone that there are good odds for them getting better. And that's important. But it either is or isn't the case, even if we don't know which is which beforehand.
But the second "could" is one that society very, very easily could change if it wanted to. There are so many people who are suicidal, for example, in large part because of money. They cannot afford their house. Their job is destroying them mentally, but they cannot take a break from it or they'll starve. They want to get mental health help, but they cannot afford to get that help. Stuff like this.
I remember one person who killed themselves in part because they could not get social housing.
And those are the real crimes, in my opinion. Those are the real tragedies. Because society is obviously an abstract idea. But these people's deaths are the equivalent of a group of people just standing by with indifference on their faces with a forklift as someone is crushed underneath a car.
Society "cares" enough about the issue of suicide to try to prevent people from jumping off things by putting up nets, or to stop people from buying things that can kill them, or to section people who they think are going to kill themselves. And then (at least in places like America) they send you the bill for that sectioning.
This means they're more than willing to prevent people from ending it and continuing to suffer, but they are not at ALL willing to give up even one cent to make sure that those people don't have to suffer anymore. So they won't WANT to kill themselves.
Essentially, society wants to take away the choice because it's cheaper and easier than making someone not want to make that choice in the first place.
And that I think is truly disgusting.
In my mind you can hold one of two perspectives: You can either say that these people should be allowed to do whatever they want and it's nobody else's business, at which point you should not section them or put up nets, or you can come at it from a place of empathy. And you can take the position that we are all in this together and we should all help each other, at which point sure put up the nets but also make sure that people suffering don't have to suffer anymore and make sure that if there really is no way to end their suffering except death, that is also something that people will be helped with.
One is a perspective of "I don't care, people do as they want" and applies that consistently. The other is a perspective of "I do care, and I want to help people" and applies that consistently.
Instead society seems to largely take a third perspective of maximum suffering. Where people are prevented from dying, but also not helped to live. Not unless they pay for it, anyway, which many people can't. It's essentially a perspective of "I do care, but only when I don't have to make any sacrifices at all, otherwise I don't care, no matter how much people suffer because of it."
People who are unambiguously pro-life in all circumstances, should at least recognise that they CHOOSE not to help people live either. Because they don't want to spend a cent on that. At least they should be honest with themselves about that.
Obviously suicide is a societal taboo. And I don't agree with that. I think it is possible to make that choice in a rational and thoughtful way where you are quite justified in making it. However, I also think equally that's not always the case. Sometimes people do rush into it and if they hadn't done it, they could've lived long and happy lives. Or people do go through significant suffering, but could have been helped and gotten better. I think society can try to sort out which is which, and in a more compassionate society it should, but I also think ultimately it's hard. And really only the person can genuinely make that choice for themselves.
But I want to focus on a specific word here. And that word is "could." They "could have been helped and gotten better."
Because I think that word, really, has two different meanings in this context. And both are important.
There's the "could" in the sense that "if they hadn't killed themselves and had instead found the help they'd been looking for, or pressed on to recovery, etc. then they would have gotten better." This is simply about a person's life being in a position that was not hopeless at all. Where they, if they'd continued living, could have found their way out of that situation in practice. And would have.
But then there's another could. This is the "could" in the sense of "they could have been helped and gotten better if society gave them the help they needed." And this, I think, is a more important "could" here.
Because that first "could" is really only speculative. Don't get me wrong, it can be important in showing someone that there are good odds for them getting better. And that's important. But it either is or isn't the case, even if we don't know which is which beforehand.
But the second "could" is one that society very, very easily could change if it wanted to. There are so many people who are suicidal, for example, in large part because of money. They cannot afford their house. Their job is destroying them mentally, but they cannot take a break from it or they'll starve. They want to get mental health help, but they cannot afford to get that help. Stuff like this.
I remember one person who killed themselves in part because they could not get social housing.
And those are the real crimes, in my opinion. Those are the real tragedies. Because society is obviously an abstract idea. But these people's deaths are the equivalent of a group of people just standing by with indifference on their faces with a forklift as someone is crushed underneath a car.
Society "cares" enough about the issue of suicide to try to prevent people from jumping off things by putting up nets, or to stop people from buying things that can kill them, or to section people who they think are going to kill themselves. And then (at least in places like America) they send you the bill for that sectioning.
This means they're more than willing to prevent people from ending it and continuing to suffer, but they are not at ALL willing to give up even one cent to make sure that those people don't have to suffer anymore. So they won't WANT to kill themselves.
Essentially, society wants to take away the choice because it's cheaper and easier than making someone not want to make that choice in the first place.
And that I think is truly disgusting.
In my mind you can hold one of two perspectives: You can either say that these people should be allowed to do whatever they want and it's nobody else's business, at which point you should not section them or put up nets, or you can come at it from a place of empathy. And you can take the position that we are all in this together and we should all help each other, at which point sure put up the nets but also make sure that people suffering don't have to suffer anymore and make sure that if there really is no way to end their suffering except death, that is also something that people will be helped with.
One is a perspective of "I don't care, people do as they want" and applies that consistently. The other is a perspective of "I do care, and I want to help people" and applies that consistently.
Instead society seems to largely take a third perspective of maximum suffering. Where people are prevented from dying, but also not helped to live. Not unless they pay for it, anyway, which many people can't. It's essentially a perspective of "I do care, but only when I don't have to make any sacrifices at all, otherwise I don't care, no matter how much people suffer because of it."
People who are unambiguously pro-life in all circumstances, should at least recognise that they CHOOSE not to help people live either. Because they don't want to spend a cent on that. At least they should be honest with themselves about that.
Last edited:
