Some Thoughts on Suicide

[bury_my_lovely]

Hi, I agree suicide is a personal choice. Also, it's the ultimate freedom one should have, it's your own body and your own life.

In some cases, the awkward part is the environment though, when they don't want someone to go. And now we have a impasse because it's the happiness of many vs the individual. But no one is obliged to live for others. There is no such rule.

 

[Hurtstomuch.]

I also am one that agrees suicide is a personal choice and I belive there should be peaceful ways to do that. Sadly we all end up on this site trying to find the least horrific way to go.

We are all human, and as a adult I feel that we should all have a right to a peaceful death. It angers me that serial killers in certain country's get this right. But the innocent and genuine hurt, destroyed people are left to suffer and die in the worst imaginable ways.

 

[bury_my_lovely]

It's not the cold-hearted egocentric go-getter person that gets to this point though. I guess we're here because love is our chain and our blessing. I wish we could see beyond that.

 

[Stoned Ghost]

Thank you so much for sharing this. It was beautiful and well written!

 

[krak333n]

Suicide used to be thought of as a criminal action, but in modern society, the view has softened into seeing suicide as a result of mental illness. On SS, we often affirm that committing suicide is a decision we have the right to make because we have dominion over our bodies and lives. However, those who oppose pro-choice ideas often believe that people own their lives and bodies yet come to very different conclusions about suicide. This is due to operating under a different value system.

In this post, I will go over two related suicide topics. The first part of my post will address the value of life, suicide from the perspective of autonomy, and the rationality (or irrationality) of ending one's life. The second part will address the harms of standard suicide prevention tactics.

The Value of Life​

Sheldon Solomon defined the cultural scheme of things to be "a shared lens for viewing life and reality that (a) gives life meaning and significance (b) is perceived as permanent and enduring over time (c) establishes the standards of values for individuals with the culture to live up to" (3). The cultural scheme of things can be thought of as the "symbolic world" that exists in each person's mind that not only gives people a means to integrate and process their experiences but also posits the nature of reality and lays down a framework of values and standards.

One value that is near-universal, so much so that it is thought to be self-evident, is life. To most, life is thought to be inherently valuable, an end rather than a means to an end, and requires no justification or explanation. There is often little philosophical reasoning provided for this idea that life is inherently worthwhile and valuable; for most, it is merely a feeling. This belief is, in essence, part of one's cultural scheme of things masquerading as objective reality. Anyone who disagrees with this idea is not only seen as wrong but as being pathologically out of touch with reality. There are, however, a few asymmetries in life that those arguing for its inherent good should answer for.

While some may regard life as a gift, it is undeniable that life comes with striving, and in many ways, this striving is asymmetrically tilted towards suffering. Negative states such as thirst, hunger, and old age (with all of its accompanying pains) come naturally, while one must strive not only to stave off or remove negative states but to reach positive states. In addition to this, one often spends far more time striving for positive states in relation to how long the positive state lasts. One pertinent example is the amount of energy, time, and oftentimes animal suffering it takes to make a meal yet how ephemeral the ensuing gustatory pleasure is. It is rarely denied that life is inculcated with striving, yet this view is often mitigated by arguing that one misses out on the pleasures that life brings when they die. But just as the time before one was born was not a deprivation, the time after one dies will not be either. In the words of Nabakov, who put it far better than I ever can, "The cradle rocks above an abyss, and common sense tells us that our existence is but a brief crack of light between two eternities of darkness. Although the two are identical twins, man, as a rule, views the prenatal abyss with more calm than the one he is heading for" (1).


Not only must we strive, we strive alone. A fundamental part of our inner selves is separated from others and while this gap can be indirectly bridged through the use of language, touch and other symbolic means such as art and music, every individual is ultimately alone in their own head. There is no one but them alone who experiences the suffering (or pleasure) that they are experiencing. We may share moments with someone else, yet they are never in that moment with us, ie, the qualia of those moments is something felt by us and us alone. Ernest Becker touched on this when he wrote, "We touch people on the outsides of their bodies, and they us, but we cannot get at their insides and cannot reveal our insides to them. This is one of the great tragedies of our interiority—it is utterly personal and unrevealable. Often we want to say something unusually intimate to a spouse, a parent, a friend, communicate something of how we are really feeling about a sunset, who we really feel we are—only to fall strangely and miserably flat" (207). It is therefore fitting that each individual should be able to ascertain whether the current costs of existence are worth it and how valuable the potential for future pleasure is relative to current suffering.

Mainstream suicide prevention ​

Suicide preventionists like to hide their paternalism under the guise of protecting a suicidal person's (or, in many cases, a suspected suicidal person's) "real, future self" from their "mentally ill and pathologically out of touch with reality current self." As I addressed in the previous part of my post, the view that suicidal people are pathologically out of touch with reality is unsubstantiated.

Perhaps the most vile method of suicide prevention is forcible psychiatric detention. In essence, this involves subjecting a suicidal person to what would otherwise be considered abuse, violence, and kidnapping if not committed against a suicidal person by medical authorities. Despite the good intentions of medical authorities, the phenomenological experience of the detained person is that of kidnapping and bodily violation. The voice of the suicidal person does not matter. If they try to resist, they will be violently forced into submission through either brute physical force, being tied down, or being drugged. Any other values that a suicidal person may hold, such as bodily inviolability or autonomy, are rendered null. The indignity of being forcibly detained is considered worth it by others if it saves a life, regardless of whether the person who is being subjected to forcible detention values their life more than dignity, autonomy, and bodily inviolability. This line of thought insinuates a deep lack of respect as respect entails allowing someone to act in their own best interests in accordance with their own values and not forcing them into following their "best interests" as defined by others. This also applies to many people who are mentally ill, as mental illness does not necessarily render someone globally irrational and all of their values (besides life) null.

As much as the mental health movement likes to talk about destigmatizing suicide, there is very little that is more stigmatizing than taking away someone's voice and violently forcing them into submission. Medical authorities have their hearts in the right place, yet they are subjecting another human being to cruel treatment on the chance that they will be grateful for it some day. Without a doubt some people are grateful, but it comes at the cost of making the dignity, autonomy, and peace of mind of a suicidal person disposable.

This is less of a suicide prevention tactic and more of an attitude. We all know this attitude well; it is the idea that suicidal people ought to keep living, and anything that is not prolife content is encouraging suicide. While suicidal people are often implored to choose life, there is no true choice unless one is allowed to do the opposite. By not allowing one to opt-out of life, pro-lifers see life not as a choice but as an obligation. If an adult cannot make an autonomous decision about what to do with their own body and life, then they do not own their body or life. This is an odious conclusion. I have had friends on this site who I deeply wish were still here, yet it was their life to take and do with it what they please, not mine to keep.

The zeal in which society wants to prevent suicide is fascinating because one is allowed to do many things that are analogous to suicide, such as cutting off all contact with loved ones or making life-altering irreversible decisions. This incongruence is once again caused by seeing life as inherently valuable and worthwhile.

I have written this post hoping that it will explain the "why" behind many of the ideas often expressed on SS. For anyone who has gotten this far, thank you for reading.

Postscript

It should be noted that I am not against suicide prevention - only the coercive means of doing so, such as throttling information and denying access to peaceful methods of suicide and locking someone up on the chance that they will end their life. These tactics cause someone to stay alive not because they voluntarily choose to live but because they have to. I am not pro suicide, I am pro voluntary life.

References
​

Nabokov, V. V., & Boyd, B. (1999). Speak, memory: An autobiography revisited. New York: Alfred A. Knopf.

Solomon, Sheldon. Denying Death.

Solomon, S., Greenberg, J., & Pyszczynski, T. A. (2015). The worm at the core: On the role of death in life. Penguin Random House.

This genuinely is something I might print out for those who are left behind after I'm finally successful. I want them to see it as a chronic illness, and that I won't be suffering anymore. That they can actually be happy for me to be out of this pain.

 

[Oya]

Suicide used to be thought of as a criminal action, but in modern society, the view has softened into seeing suicide as a result of mental illness. On SS, we often affirm that committing suicide is a decision we have the right to make because we have dominion over our bodies and lives. However, those who oppose pro-choice ideas often believe that people own their lives and bodies yet come to very different conclusions about suicide. This is due to operating under a different value system.

In this post, I will go over two related suicide topics. The first part of my post will address the value of life, suicide from the perspective of autonomy, and the rationality (or irrationality) of ending one's life. The second part will address the harms of standard suicide prevention tactics.

The Value of Life​

Sheldon Solomon defined the cultural scheme of things to be "a shared lens for viewing life and reality that (a) gives life meaning and significance (b) is perceived as permanent and enduring over time (c) establishes the standards of values for individuals with the culture to live up to" (3). The cultural scheme of things can be thought of as the "symbolic world" that exists in each person's mind that not only gives people a means to integrate and process their experiences but also posits the nature of reality and lays down a framework of values and standards.

One value that is near-universal, so much so that it is thought to be self-evident, is life. To most, life is thought to be inherently valuable, an end rather than a means to an end, and requires no justification or explanation. There is often little philosophical reasoning provided for this idea that life is inherently worthwhile and valuable; for most, it is merely a feeling. This belief is, in essence, part of one's cultural scheme of things masquerading as objective reality. Anyone who disagrees with this idea is not only seen as wrong but as being pathologically out of touch with reality. There are, however, a few asymmetries in life that those arguing for its inherent good should answer for.

While some may regard life as a gift, it is undeniable that life comes with striving, and in many ways, this striving is asymmetrically tilted towards suffering. Negative states such as thirst, hunger, and old age (with all of its accompanying pains) come naturally, while one must strive not only to stave off or remove negative states but to reach positive states. In addition to this, one often spends far more time striving for positive states in relation to how long the positive state lasts. One pertinent example is the amount of energy, time, and oftentimes animal suffering it takes to make a meal yet how ephemeral the ensuing gustatory pleasure is. It is rarely denied that life is inculcated with striving, yet this view is often mitigated by arguing that one misses out on the pleasures that life brings when they die. But just as the time before one was born was not a deprivation, the time after one dies will not be either. In the words of Nabakov, who put it far better than I ever can, "The cradle rocks above an abyss, and common sense tells us that our existence is but a brief crack of light between two eternities of darkness. Although the two are identical twins, man, as a rule, views the prenatal abyss with more calm than the one he is heading for" (1).


Not only must we strive, we strive alone. A fundamental part of our inner selves is separated from others and while this gap can be indirectly bridged through the use of language, touch and other symbolic means such as art and music, every individual is ultimately alone in their own head. There is no one but them alone who experiences the suffering (or pleasure) that they are experiencing. We may share moments with someone else, yet they are never in that moment with us, ie, the qualia of those moments is something felt by us and us alone. Ernest Becker touched on this when he wrote, "We touch people on the outsides of their bodies, and they us, but we cannot get at their insides and cannot reveal our insides to them. This is one of the great tragedies of our interiority—it is utterly personal and unrevealable. Often we want to say something unusually intimate to a spouse, a parent, a friend, communicate something of how we are really feeling about a sunset, who we really feel we are—only to fall strangely and miserably flat" (207). It is therefore fitting that each individual should be able to ascertain whether the current costs of existence are worth it and how valuable the potential for future pleasure is relative to current suffering.

Mainstream suicide prevention ​

Suicide preventionists like to hide their paternalism under the guise of protecting a suicidal person's (or, in many cases, a suspected suicidal person's) "real, future self" from their "mentally ill and pathologically out of touch with reality current self." As I addressed in the previous part of my post, the view that suicidal people are pathologically out of touch with reality is unsubstantiated.

Perhaps the most vile method of suicide prevention is forcible psychiatric detention. In essence, this involves subjecting a suicidal person to what would otherwise be considered abuse, violence, and kidnapping if not committed against a suicidal person by medical authorities. Despite the good intentions of medical authorities, the phenomenological experience of the detained person is that of kidnapping and bodily violation. The voice of the suicidal person does not matter. If they try to resist, they will be violently forced into submission through either brute physical force, being tied down, or being drugged. Any other values that a suicidal person may hold, such as bodily inviolability or autonomy, are rendered null. The indignity of being forcibly detained is considered worth it by others if it saves a life, regardless of whether the person who is being subjected to forcible detention values their life more than dignity, autonomy, and bodily inviolability. This line of thought insinuates a deep lack of respect as respect entails allowing someone to act in their own best interests in accordance with their own values and not forcing them into following their "best interests" as defined by others. This also applies to many people who are mentally ill, as mental illness does not necessarily render someone globally irrational and all of their values (besides life) null.

As much as the mental health movement likes to talk about destigmatizing suicide, there is very little that is more stigmatizing than taking away someone's voice and violently forcing them into submission. Medical authorities have their hearts in the right place, yet they are subjecting another human being to cruel treatment on the chance that they will be grateful for it some day. Without a doubt some people are grateful, but it comes at the cost of making the dignity, autonomy, and peace of mind of a suicidal person disposable.

This is less of a suicide prevention tactic and more of an attitude. We all know this attitude well; it is the idea that suicidal people ought to keep living, and anything that is not prolife content is encouraging suicide. While suicidal people are often implored to choose life, there is no true choice unless one is allowed to do the opposite. By not allowing one to opt-out of life, pro-lifers see life not as a choice but as an obligation. If an adult cannot make an autonomous decision about what to do with their own body and life, then they do not own their body or life. This is an odious conclusion. I have had friends on this site who I deeply wish were still here, yet it was their life to take and do with it what they please, not mine to keep.

The zeal in which society wants to prevent suicide is fascinating because one is allowed to do many things that are analogous to suicide, such as cutting off all contact with loved ones or making life-altering irreversible decisions. This incongruence is once again caused by seeing life as inherently valuable and worthwhile.

I have written this post hoping that it will explain the "why" behind many of the ideas often expressed on SS. For anyone who has gotten this far, thank you for reading.

Postscript

It should be noted that I am not against suicide prevention - only the coercive means of doing so, such as throttling information and denying access to peaceful methods of suicide and locking someone up on the chance that they will end their life. These tactics cause someone to stay alive not because they voluntarily choose to live but because they have to. I am not pro suicide, I am pro voluntary life.

References
​

Nabokov, V. V., & Boyd, B. (1999). Speak, memory: An autobiography revisited. New York: Alfred A. Knopf.

Solomon, Sheldon. Denying Death.

Solomon, S., Greenberg, J., & Pyszczynski, T. A. (2015). The worm at the core: On the role of death in life. Penguin Random House.

Many thanks for your time to write this. Each person in ones life would take ones self inflicted passing different, regardless of the ones actual truth (for taking ones own life) bias from past experience with the ones life/ lack off, conditioning of life/ environment. So much extneral thoughts/ confusion of the living after ones self inflicted passing that the truth the ones own truth fades away regardless. Which makes many of the majority cases and conclusions obsolete/ false

 

[dumbo007]

It is not easy for anyone to reach the point of suicide. The discussion is about the impact it has on living loved ones and others around. The person involved hss been through a lot to get ti the point, but is not around to advocate for himself. As a society, we should have more didcourse and adults should be able to pick their own path.

 

[Euthanza]

Mainstream suicide prevention ​

Suicide preventionists like to hide their paternalism under the guise of protecting a suicidal person's (or, in many cases, a suspected suicidal person's) "real, future self" from their "mentally ill and pathologically out of touch with reality current self." As I addressed in the previous part of my post, the view that suicidal people are pathologically out of touch with reality is unsubstantiated.

Perhaps the most vile method of suicide prevention is forcible psychiatric detention. In essence, this involves subjecting a suicidal person to what would otherwise be considered abuse, violence, and kidnapping if not committed against a suicidal person by medical authorities. Despite the good intentions of medical authorities, the phenomenological experience of the detained person is that of kidnapping and bodily violation. The voice of the suicidal person does not matter. If they try to resist, they will be violently forced into submission through either brute physical force, being tied down, or being drugged. Any other values that a suicidal person may hold, such as bodily inviolability or autonomy, are rendered null. The indignity of being forcibly detained is considered worth it by others if it saves a life, regardless of whether the person who is being subjected to forcible detention values their life more than dignity, autonomy, and bodily inviolability. This line of thought insinuates a deep lack of respect as respect entails allowing someone to act in their own best interests in accordance with their own values and not forcing them into following their "best interests" as defined by others. This also applies to many people who are mentally ill, as mental illness does not necessarily render someone globally irrational and all of their values (besides life) null.

As much as the mental health movement likes to talk about destigmatizing suicide, there is very little that is more stigmatizing than taking away someone's voice and violently forcing them into submission. Medical authorities have their hearts in the right place, yet they are subjecting another human being to cruel treatment on the chance that they will be grateful for it some day. Without a doubt some people are grateful, but it comes at the cost of making the dignity, autonomy, and peace of mind of a suicidal person disposable.

NPC (Non Pro Choice) crab-mentality-preventors

 

[Guend]

Thanks so much for sharing, I loved it. We are the ones who have to decide for ourselves.

 

[TLEEA]

While I do agree with the autonomy of gauging what is worth striving for, I do not particularly understand the delegation of the more generalized phenomenon of suicide prevention under prevention-ism or mainstream-ism.

The plight of the suicidal from the authority of medicine is an understandable one. It is tragedy of choice. But is not any other circumstance, where a person who wants to live tries to push the one who does not want to toward life through any means possible, also a tragedy of choice?

There is definitely a case to be made that the way medicine treats suicidal autonomy antagonistically is systematically inhumane. A base and bleak standard of psychiatry dictates that the suicidal, shaped by their own worldviews and lived experiences, must live; as if in some blind faith towards medicine. Yet the case is the same for any other social dichotomy of suicide.

The parent who stops their suicidal son from suicide enforces their right of shared living to the suicidal son. The friends who stops their suicidal friend also enforces their right of shared living to the suicidal friend. Whether it is the field of medicine or a mere friend that convinces the suicidal person, it is all within the same dialectic of attitude. That there is a reason and responsibility of living that the suicidal can choose, but does not so because they have gauged their right to striving.


And having said all this, I think we can be quite mistaken that the matter of suicide is autonomous.

We can say that we can be autonomous with our own possible suicides, but is that functionally the case? At the very singular moments that we are convinced that it is better to stop striving, there arises a unit of incompatibility; that we have lost, or our efforts are not worth it in any a certain event. It is this first base experience of loss that the first possibility of suicide arises; that what is being strived for is not worth it anymore. We do not choose to feel this loss, but that we have lost against a particularly-despairing experience, and the possibility arises that we can choose not to deal with it.

To have lost in reason and emotion: this is what psychiatry dictates to be the foundation of depression, and any other perceived lows of mental disorders much lower than the emotional average. Bad things happen. We are inclined to think that bad things might keep happening. We feel bad because we feel that only bad things are happening. This very process goes beyond the choice of the person. To say that a person does not want to kill themselves does not mean that they have not yet done so in some minute, aggregating, fashion.

This is not by choice. This is only the culminating syntheses of lived experiences. If suicide can happen by this unstoppable phenomenon of the inner synthesis of experience, can it really be by choice? Especially within the context of those who are inclined to feel worse in their lived experiences i.e. those that have significantly-despairing lives because of their mental health disorders.

It is not that suicide is a self-inflicted death of a merely living body in a merely living world, but self-inflicted phenomena of inner deaths aggregated through the conflicts of incompatible lived experiences. And there is no autonomy in conflict, only victories and losses.

I can understand that the emotionally-healthy person can kill themselves by choice, but to most of the people I've seen in this site who have portrayed their lived experiences in a very despairing fashion, I doubt that it would be really autonomous for them.

 

[Euthanza]

While I do agree with the autonomy of gauging what is worth striving for, I do not particularly understand the delegation of the more generalized phenomenon of suicide prevention under prevention-ism or mainstream-ism.

The plight of the suicidal from the authority of medicine is an understandable one. It is tragedy of choice. But is not any other circumstance, where a person who wants to live tries to push the one who does not want to toward life through any means possible, also a tragedy of choice?

There is definitely a case to be made that the way medicine treats suicidal autonomy antagonistically is systematically inhumane. A base and bleak standard of psychiatry dictates that the suicidal, shaped by their own worldviews and lived experiences, must live; as if in some blind faith towards medicine. Yet the case is the same for any other social dichotomy of suicide.

The parent who stops their suicidal son from suicide enforces their right of shared living to the suicidal son. The friends who stops their suicidal friend also enforces their right of shared living to the suicidal friend. Whether it is the field of medicine or a mere friend that convinces the suicidal person, it is all within the same dialectic of attitude. That there is a reason and responsibility of living that the suicidal can choose, but does not so because they have gauged their right to striving.


And having said all this, I think we can be quite mistaken that the matter of suicide is autonomous.

We can say that we can be autonomous with our own possible suicides, but is that functionally the case? At the very singular moments that we are convinced that it is better to stop striving, there arises a unit of incompatibility; that we have lost, or our efforts are not worth it in any a certain event. It is this first base experience of loss that the first possibility of suicide arises; that what is being strived for is not worth it anymore. We do not choose to feel this loss, but that we have lost against a particularly-despairing experience, and the possibility arises that we can choose not to deal with it.

To have lost in reason and emotion: this is what psychiatry dictates to be the foundation of depression, and any other perceived lows of mental disorders much lower than the emotional average. Bad things happen. We are inclined to think that bad things might keep happening. We feel bad because we feel that only bad things are happening. This very process goes beyond the choice of the person. To say that a person does not want to kill themselves does not mean that they have not yet done so in some minute, aggregating, fashion.

This is not by choice. This is only the culminating syntheses of lived experiences. If suicide can happen by this unstoppable phenomenon of the inner synthesis of experience, can it really be by choice? Especially within the context of those who are inclined to feel worse in their lived experiences i.e. those that have significantly-despairing lives because of their mental health disorders.

It is not that suicide is a self-inflicted death of a merely living body in a merely living world, but self-inflicted phenomena of inner deaths aggregated through the conflicts of incompatible lived experiences. And there is no autonomy in conflict, only victories and losses.

I can understand that the emotionally-healthy person can kill themselves by choice, but to most of the people I've seen in this site who have portrayed their lived experiences in a very despairing fashion, I doubt that it would be really autonomous for them.

We're going back forth with this; Is there really a free will? Is there really a bodily autonomy? Are we determined to do this deliberately or are determined by circumstances? Are we living in simulation? And so on so on. I would say yes and skip forward to more practical issue. I'll leave the questions/answers to the philosophers debate, there are branches of it to back-ups all the desired outcomes. I'm on the pro-choice side.

 

[Nolife62]

I spent a couple hours reading some of the post members have written, it would take me about 6 months to read what has already been posted, I don't know if my theory has been discussed, but here it is anyway.
I'm a new member and I do have questions but before I get to that I want to add my two cents.

I'm in my 60's and I've had friends and family commit suicide and I listen to the survivors make statement such as " the person was selfish" or "if they had just given it time it would of gotten better" or if they only went for help" etc..... I'm sure we've all heard like statements.
My question to most of them is this. Everyone has their own limits on the emotional pain they can handle or the fear of what's coming down the road for actions they've taken whether by mistake or a cry for help or due to health issues.
I usually make a statement as a question " while we look at what we know and think it would of gotten better if they only gave it more time it's the unknown that drove someone to ctb. Who are we and how "selfish" are we being when we basically say .... We don't care about how much pain you're in we just want you around so we can see you or talk to you if we want, we want you around for our benefit... So now "who's" the "selfish" one?".
Sorry for sounding off. I have talked to my kids and siblings about this and why I've reached the decision I have and while I get the normal response, they say they understand.
I'm fortunate that I've always spoken my mind without fear of what other people think. So when I'm gone there'll be no questions as to why.

 

[GettingOut]

I spent a couple hours reading some of the post members have written, it would take me about 6 months to read what has already been posted, I don't know if my theory has been discussed, but here it is anyway.
I'm a new member and I do have questions but before I get to that I want to add my two cents.

I'm in my 60's and I've had friends and family commit suicide and I listen to the survivors make statement such as " the person was selfish" or "if they had just given it time it would of gotten better" or if they only went for help" etc..... I'm sure we've all heard like statements.
My question to most of them is this. Everyone has their own limits on the emotional pain they can handle or the fear of what's coming down the road for actions they've taken whether by mistake or a cry for help or due to health issues.
I usually make a statement as a question " while we look at what we know and think it would of gotten better if they only gave it more time it's the unknown that drove someone to ctb. Who are we and how "selfish" are we being when we basically say .... We don't care about how much pain you're in we just want you around so we can see you or talk to you if we want, we want you around for our benefit... So now "who's" the "selfish" one?".
Sorry for sounding off. I have talked to my kids and siblings about this and why I've reached the decision I have and while I get the normal response, they say they understand.
I'm fortunate that I've always spoken my mind without fear of what other people think. So when I'm gone there'll be no questions as to why.

Your post is so accurate! I'm surrounded by pro-life friends that have no idea what hell I live through each day. Many don't care. I try to reach out to them for help, but they don't even read the messages I send. I literally cannot take the mental, emotional and physical pain anymore!

Then I have two money-loving narcissists who blame me. As a disabled with motor neuron disease, I cannot help that my medication for the chronic pain makes me drowsy or that I struggle to concentrate and cannot be as hard-working as I used to be a few years ago. It is true, I am a liability, a giant black hole that sucks in money for my medical needs. I want to die with dignity, in control and with what is left of my heart.

I don't think that is "selfish." But I don't care what they say after I'm on the bus, cause I won't be able to hear their excuses for not being there for me when I needed them most.

 

[Nolife62]

Your post is so accurate! I'm surrounded by pro-life friends that have no idea what hell I live through each day. Many don't care. I try to reach out to them for help, but they don't even read the messages I send. I literally cannot take the mental, emotional and physical pain anymore!

Then I have two money-loving narcissists who blame me. As a disabled with motor neuron disease, I cannot help that my medication for the chronic pain makes me drowsy or that I struggle to concentrate and cannot be as hard-working as I used to be a few years ago. It is true, I am a liability, a giant black hole that sucks in money for my medical needs. I want to die with dignity, in control and with what is left of my heart.

I don't think that is "selfish." But I don't care what they say after I'm on the bus, cause I won't be able to hear their excuses for not being there for me when I needed them most.

My attitude exactly, my kids are to busy, or they say I live to far away, 1 hours drive, and now that I have all these health issues they don't want to hear about it.

 

[gimzero]

Its not only mental health is chronic illness and lonliness or both.

 

[gimzero]

And they create a control system like reincarnation or heaven hell to keep souls in this matrix and i wonder if they didnt expect someone who end his life how they can judge a soul!

 

[Ms.Starr]

This was very well written

 

[Wantingtogo]

I'm not mentally Ill by any definition of the term. I can't stand my species but looking at our species and how we behave does that seriously make me mentally ill? I'm probably far more sane than most people that carry on tolerating the hypocrisy of mankind. The ONLY thing that keeps me living is limiting my contact with humans to a minimum. I literally only see a couple of people. I have no fear of Covid but now use pretend fear as an excuse to keep people away. The best thing about Covid is it has kept people away from me and I will continue to use that "fear" even when it's over. Spend time with animals they heal they are a balm to the damage caused by humans. They make life worth living. No judgement, no naval gazing just food warmth and shelter. Given that we can now identify as whatever we want to be and demand that our "truth" is recognised I now officially no longer identify as human, homo sapien or part of humanity. I am a separate species no longer subject to the rules mores beliefs or standards of that breed.

I agree. Animals, not humans, are capable of truly unconditional love.

 

[Yelkovan]

Perhaps the most vile method of suicide prevention is forcible psychiatric detention. In essence, this involves subjecting a suicidal person to what would otherwise be considered abuse, violence, and kidnapping if not committed against a suicidal person by medical authorities. Despite the good intentions of medical authorities, the phenomenological experience of the detained person is that of kidnapping and bodily violation. The voice of the suicidal person does not matter. If they try to resist, they will be violently forced into submission through either brute physical force, being tied down, or being drugged. Any other values that a suicidal person may hold, such as bodily inviolability or autonomy, are rendered null

So glad this is brought up as a point here. It's like being collectively gaslit every time people continue to insist that the "suicide hotline" and police locking up and abusing suicidal people is normal and shouldn't be questioned.

At 14 I developed PTSD from abuse. But every time I exhibited symptoms of PTSD including suicidal feelings, I got forcibly locked up, tied down, put in solitary confinement, and sent to a psych ward. Every few weeks my whole teen years.The most disabling PTSD flashbacks I have now aren't even related to the original abuse that gave me PTSD, but the prolonged systemic abuse that followed; being imprisoned for being a suicidal & abused kid. it made things so much worse

 

[makethepainstop]

I feel like this, I have been given an accursed life. I did not ask for this unwanted life. I dont think l deserved this wretched life. There for I and I alone have the power to stay. And the power to leave at my command, and no else's.

 

[adrienne]

nothing really to add to this well written text.

i think in medicine not only about mental health but about health in general a lot from this mindset of saving life at all costs comes from a historic religious influence.
like it somehow still is seen as a sin which is now masked by some different terminology. and despite the fact in many countries the influence of religion is getting lower it still prevails cause mindsets don't change overnight. it often takes generations for bigger changes.
so based on this mindset even statements like this from your text "It is therefore fitting that each individual should be able to ascertain whether the current costs of existence are worth it and how valuable the potential for future pleasure is relative to current suffering." are invalidated as being out of touch of reality too easily.

but at least we see in some countries movement and the realization that leaving in dignity can be more important than staying alive at all costs.
but it's for sure a long way. i think in terms of mental health treatment we are still more in the middle ages than in modern times.
and also the tendency in modern society to treat symptoms instead of digging deeper to the root isn't very helpful. but ongoing treatment is more profitable - but anyways - that's a whole other topic ^^

In my opinion, the countries that do recognize assisted suicide as a right are more reasonable than this site. This site slaps a sticker of "it's your right" on everyone, with or without examination by a professional. Other countries that approve euthanasia for depressed people have age restrictions, and other reasonable restrictions. It isn't a bad thing to be pro-help on here. Teenagers on this website shouldn't be told "it's your right" and everyone else is the enemy. The defense here is, "it isn't the site's responsibility if a teenager makes an account and ctb" but it's already become a problem… still, no changes, and teenagers are still the audience. It's narcissistic to set this place on a pedestal and compare it to countries with legal /assisted euthanasia. This place examines no one and celebrates the anarchy of its carelessness. For example, if it became a problem that the suicidal audience was as young as 13, a 13 year old that was smart enough to lie about their age, site runners here would dismiss that problem and say "it isn't my problem" …something a legal expert on autonomy and freedom in Switzerland could not do or agree with. Difference in values? You're generalizing the different audiences on here as one or the other. Black and white. But this place is just sad compared to real clinics in other countries, you don't have to be against euthanasia to see that. This place targets anyone, everyone, To hell if they're a minor and so on. It's ironic the admins etc defend themselves with it's not our fault, when more than most depressed and suicidal people here need support and can't get it from family or friends. Some of us are completely alone, but it's too hell with the kid if the parents aren't watching them.

 

[👁️👃👁️]

In my opinion, the countries that do recognize assisted suicide as a right are more reasonable than this site. This site slaps a sticker of "it's your right" on everyone, with or without examination by a professional. Other countries that approve euthanasia for depressed people have age restrictions, and other reasonable restrictions. It isn't a bad thing to be pro-help on here. Teenagers on this website shouldn't be told "it's your right" and everyone else is the enemy. The defense here is, "it isn't the site's responsibility if a teenager makes an account and ctb" but it's already become a problem… still, no changes, and teenagers are still the audience. It's narcissistic to set this place on a pedestal and compare it to countries with legal /assisted euthanasia. This place examines no one and celebrates the anarchy of its carelessness. For example, if it became a problem that the suicidal audience was as young as 13, a 13 year old that was smart enough to lie about their age, site runners here would dismiss that problem and say "it isn't my problem" …something a legal expert on autonomy and freedom in Switzerland could not do or agree with. Difference in values? You're generalizing the different audiences on here as one or the other. Black and white. But this place is just sad compared to real clinics in other countries, you don't have to be against euthanasia to see that. This place targets anyone, everyone, To hell if they're a minor and so on. It's ironic the admins etc defend themselves with it's not our fault, when more than most depressed and suicidal people here need support and can't get it from family or friends. Some of us are completely alone, but it's too hell with the kid if the parents aren't watching them.

I do understand what you're saying about the teenagers and I agree with you. What changes would you expect to see here?
You think the teenagers can't just Google how to kill themselves and find the information on other websites?

 

[adrienne]

I do understand what you're saying about the teenagers and I agree with you. What changes would you expect to see here?
You think the teenagers can't just Google how to kill themselves and find the information on other websites?

It's complicated sadly, right? Remember when crocs were trending across the US? IMO teenagers are very impressionable. Social media and the like doesn't help.

 

[👁️👃👁️]

It's complicated sadly, right? Remember when crocs were trending across the US? IMO teenagers are very impressionable. Social media and the like doesn't help.

I 100% agree with you on the teenage aspect. I see a lot of promortalist here that are just like "anyone of any age should have the right to just take their life" I absolutely disagree with that with every ounce of my being because a lot of teenagers are emotionally immature and are usually just going through a really rough patch in their life and do things on impulse.

 

[adrienne]

I 100% agree with you on the teenage aspect. I see a lot of promortalist here that are just like "anyone of any age should have the right to just take their life" I absolutely disagree with that with every ounce of my being because a lot of teenagers are emotionally immature and are usually just going through a really rough patch in their life and do things on impulse.

???

???

Oh, no. It's just happened a lot in the past, unfortunately.

 

[killmeiwannadie]

Suicide used to be thought of as a criminal action, but in modern society, the view has softened into seeing suicide as a result of mental illness. On SS, we often affirm that committing suicide is a decision we have the right to make because we have dominion over our bodies and lives. However, those who oppose pro-choice ideas often believe that people own their lives and bodies yet come to very different conclusions about suicide. This is due to operating under a different value system.

In this post, I will go over two related suicide topics. The first part of my post will address the value of life, suicide from the perspective of autonomy, and the rationality (or irrationality) of ending one's life. The second part will address the harms of standard suicide prevention tactics.

The Value of Life​

Sheldon Solomon defined the cultural scheme of things to be "a shared lens for viewing life and reality that (a) gives life meaning and significance (b) is perceived as permanent and enduring over time (c) establishes the standards of values for individuals with the culture to live up to" (3). The cultural scheme of things can be thought of as the "symbolic world" that exists in each person's mind that not only gives people a means to integrate and process their experiences but also posits the nature of reality and lays down a framework of values and standards.

One value that is near-universal, so much so that it is thought to be self-evident, is life. To most, life is thought to be inherently valuable, an end rather than a means to an end, and requires no justification or explanation. There is often little philosophical reasoning provided for this idea that life is inherently worthwhile and valuable; for most, it is merely a feeling. This belief is, in essence, part of one's cultural scheme of things masquerading as objective reality. Anyone who disagrees with this idea is not only seen as wrong but as being pathologically out of touch with reality. There are, however, a few asymmetries in life that those arguing for its inherent good should answer for.

While some may regard life as a gift, it is undeniable that life comes with striving, and in many ways, this striving is asymmetrically tilted towards suffering. Negative states such as thirst, hunger, and old age (with all of its accompanying pains) come naturally, while one must strive not only to stave off or remove negative states but to reach positive states. In addition to this, one often spends far more time striving for positive states in relation to how long the positive state lasts. One pertinent example is the amount of energy, time, and oftentimes animal suffering it takes to make a meal yet how ephemeral the ensuing gustatory pleasure is. It is rarely denied that life is inculcated with striving, yet this view is often mitigated by arguing that one misses out on the pleasures that life brings when they die. But just as the time before one was born was not a deprivation, the time after one dies will not be either. In the words of Nabakov, who put it far better than I ever can, "The cradle rocks above an abyss, and common sense tells us that our existence is but a brief crack of light between two eternities of darkness. Although the two are identical twins, man, as a rule, views the prenatal abyss with more calm than the one he is heading for" (1).


Not only must we strive, we strive alone. A fundamental part of our inner selves is separated from others and while this gap can be indirectly bridged through the use of language, touch and other symbolic means such as art and music, every individual is ultimately alone in their own head. There is no one but them alone who experiences the suffering (or pleasure) that they are experiencing. We may share moments with someone else, yet they are never in that moment with us, ie, the qualia of those moments is something felt by us and us alone. Ernest Becker touched on this when he wrote, "We touch people on the outsides of their bodies, and they us, but we cannot get at their insides and cannot reveal our insides to them. This is one of the great tragedies of our interiority—it is utterly personal and unrevealable. Often we want to say something unusually intimate to a spouse, a parent, a friend, communicate something of how we are really feeling about a sunset, who we really feel we are—only to fall strangely and miserably flat" (207). It is therefore fitting that each individual should be able to ascertain whether the current costs of existence are worth it and how valuable the potential for future pleasure is relative to current suffering.

Mainstream suicide prevention ​

Suicide preventionists like to hide their paternalism under the guise of protecting a suicidal person's (or, in many cases, a suspected suicidal person's) "real, future self" from their "mentally ill and pathologically out of touch with reality current self." As I addressed in the previous part of my post, the view that suicidal people are pathologically out of touch with reality is unsubstantiated.

Perhaps the most vile method of suicide prevention is forcible psychiatric detention. In essence, this involves subjecting a suicidal person to what would otherwise be considered abuse, violence, and kidnapping if not committed against a suicidal person by medical authorities. Despite the good intentions of medical authorities, the phenomenological experience of the detained person is that of kidnapping and bodily violation. The voice of the suicidal person does not matter. If they try to resist, they will be violently forced into submission through either brute physical force, being tied down, or being drugged. Any other values that a suicidal person may hold, such as bodily inviolability or autonomy, are rendered null. The indignity of being forcibly detained is considered worth it by others if it saves a life, regardless of whether the person who is being subjected to forcible detention values their life more than dignity, autonomy, and bodily inviolability. This line of thought insinuates a deep lack of respect as respect entails allowing someone to act in their own best interests in accordance with their own values and not forcing them into following their "best interests" as defined by others. This also applies to many people who are mentally ill, as mental illness does not necessarily render someone globally irrational and all of their values (besides life) null.

As much as the mental health movement likes to talk about destigmatizing suicide, there is very little that is more stigmatizing than taking away someone's voice and violently forcing them into submission. Medical authorities have their hearts in the right place, yet they are subjecting another human being to cruel treatment on the chance that they will be grateful for it some day. Without a doubt some people are grateful, but it comes at the cost of making the dignity, autonomy, and peace of mind of a suicidal person disposable.

This is less of a suicide prevention tactic and more of an attitude. We all know this attitude well; it is the idea that suicidal people ought to keep living, and anything that is not prolife content is encouraging suicide. While suicidal people are often implored to choose life, there is no true choice unless one is allowed to do the opposite. By not allowing one to opt-out of life, pro-lifers see life not as a choice but as an obligation. If an adult cannot make an autonomous decision about what to do with their own body and life, then they do not own their body or life. This is an odious conclusion. I have had friends on this site who I deeply wish were still here, yet it was their life to take and do with it what they please, not mine to keep.

The zeal in which society wants to prevent suicide is fascinating because one is allowed to do many things that are analogous to suicide, such as cutting off all contact with loved ones or making life-altering irreversible decisions. This incongruence is once again caused by seeing life as inherently valuable and worthwhile.

I have written this post hoping that it will explain the "why" behind many of the ideas often expressed on SS. For anyone who has gotten this far, thank you for reading.

Postscript

It should be noted that I am not against suicide prevention - only the coercive means of doing so, such as throttling information and denying access to peaceful methods of suicide and locking someone up on the chance that they will end their life. These tactics cause someone to stay alive not because they voluntarily choose to live but because they have to. I am not pro suicide, I am pro voluntary life.

References
​

Nabokov, V. V., & Boyd, B. (1999). Speak, memory: An autobiography revisited. New York: Alfred A. Knopf.

Solomon, Sheldon. Denying Death.

Solomon, S., Greenberg, J., & Pyszczynski, T. A. (2015). The worm at the core: On the role of death in life. Penguin Random House.

the part about being locked up is something i struggle with. my experience with suicide prevention has been more damaging for me than anything. they don't actually care about you. the harm you in the process of trying to "protect you from yourself" and never come up with a good reason as to why anyone should be driven to live in a society that is rapidly rotting. It makes sense to me that I don't want to live and no amount of pretty words and euphemisms about how life is overall beautiful is going to change that because life is not overall beautiful. Then I get into the very real pain of my life and they get stuck and sound stupid trying to convince me it will change for the better. the chances are higher if the opposite happening and you can tell they know and i know, but somehow i'm still not thinking straight for wanting to end it where my life is now. The medical model of treating my mental illness has caused so much damage I experienced chronic pain from what they've done. Yet if you asked all the people involved they will assert that they helped me. they didn't. Anyways this was well written. Thank you for this. It actually helps to be able to talk about suicide with people thats won't make me feel worse for not making up a reason to keep living in suffering. they are the ones that aren't rooted in reality in my opinion but i don't try to force that on them

 

[affinity]

This is totally a random thought/stream of consciousness for me, but let's talk about countries (including my own) so called "controversially" expanding the criteria for assisted suicide.

Many are up in arms about this, especially since we've already had at least 2 cases where the individuals approved died because the government couldn't offer safe housing.

One in particular needed housing that was non smoking/didn't use harsh cleaning supplies, but since she was on social assistance due to disability, that wasn't realistic. Her doctors were livid, but agreed this woman had no quality of life without govt intervention that was never going to come.

Let's keep it 100: the government has literally done the math there. They're very well aware of the inherent costs (especially in countries with socialized medicine) of those who are mentally ill or are otherwise disabled. It's cheaper to offer them the out than to ensure they're provided with medical care and necessary services (housing/food/basic needs).

All these advocates and concern trolls are not only angry at the wrong issue, they're also not being remotely realistic when it comes to social issues. Those safety nets our parents have/had simply aren't there for us and the issues we face are quite different (and that's not to say they didn't have their own struggles) in type and severity. Safe housing should be a right - not a privilege. Nutritious food too. But I just don't see that happening unless there is a mass uprising…

All in all - I'm actually excited at the prospect of the criteria being broadened because I know that it will be a welcomed and humane respite for many who are suffering with no realistic end in sight. They're being quite realistic in their world view that no one is coming to save, protect or advocate for them - bc the govt and society at large are fine with them suffering, as long as they're out of sight. It's all fine until it's you who needs the help and empathy. That's one thing COVID should have taught folks imho.

 

[ksp]

I wanted to say this for a long time: your words are incredibly well written and insightful!

Society needs a lot more people like you, to see the essence of human condition for what it is, and not what is 'supposed' to be (as dictated by a few). Too late I realized that I have to question everything, including existence itself

The qualia you mentioned: only I know exactly what it is like to be me, no matter how hard I try to explain it to others, or how eloquent I am
My point is: don't tell me how beautiful life is (to you!) - you have the right to see its beauty, so grant me my right to have my own opinion

I don't support suicide, I support an informed choice. I can make my own decision after I evaluate all information available
Society shouldn't restrict information to me because is 'taboo', and if my decision is different than yours it should be respected without judgment

PS. I'm a new member here but I've read many thoughts and opinions on this site: I deeply respect each and everyone in this community!

 

[SocietySucks]

we aren't seen as people but as means to make money, they want to keep us alive for wage slavery. meanwhile, suicide is an act of bravery, not cowardice. The fact is life was imposed on us, none of us chose to be here.

 

[IWTD]

I feel like this, I have been given an accursed life. I did not ask for this unwanted life. I dont think l deserved this wretched life. There for I and I alone have the power to stay. And the power to leave at my command, and no else's.

What to do when even though we didn't ask; but we've made lives?