Venting With regards to “concern trolling, false reporting, red flags, and abuse of services”

[TAW122]

This is not a new issue and I know I'm not the only person who (throughout my life) has experienced this and to some people here, this is perhaps preaching to the choir again, but I thought I'd write a thread about this. Partly to vent, but also to raise more awareness and discussion on this particular issue. It is no surprise that in a prohibitive, anti-death, anti-choice society that we live in, the masses as well as the State seeks to keep us trapped in existence as long as possible, sometimes even surpassing natural death and decay (prolongation of sentience). Anyways, this thread will focus on the issue with "concern trolling (both IRL as well as virtual), pro-lifers' false reporting, actively seeking out 'red flags' (the invasive profiling of people with certain behaviors, actions, demeanors, and traits), and of course, the abuse of services (with malicious intent, but masked under the guise of wellness and safety).

Story (a short personal anecdote):
Throughout my life, I've been looked upon by those who seek to involve themselves into my life and I often find myself defending my actions and having to justify things that I shouldn't have to. It is as though my life is lived through scrunity at (almost) every corner. While there are some people who have genuine concern and seek to be benevolent (like truly benevolent), there are those who are OMBs (a term taken from C.S. Lewis's quote, meaning Omnipotent Moral Busybodies) and they are one of the worst to deal with, even from a pro-choicer's perspective. Of course, I don't think there will ever be a time where one is truly left to one's own devices in terms of the right to die, there will inevitably always be some amount of intrusion and inquisition into one's personal autonomy, under the guise of health, safety, and welfare of an individual.

For starters, I do believe that the rollback and curtailment of paternalistic, authoritarian, and invasive interventions against individuals who have not done anything unlawful nor infringed upon others' (mainly pro-lifers' rights) is a first step in the right direction. This would at least allow an individual to exercise their rights and enjoy the freedom of privacy and peace, especially when they have done nothing wrong (legally) nor infringed on others' rights. Existentialgoof's quote (one of many) summarizes the point up very well.

"The government should not be permitted the power to actively prevent people from accessing effective suicide methods. This should mean that they either allow medical assisted suicide, or get rid of the laws that are currently stopping people from accessing highly effective suicide methods through other channels, and the laws which permit (in fact obligate) the authorities to intervene to stop suicide attempts in progress." -existentialgoof

(colored the most prominent segment of the quote)

With all that said, while the lack of effective means to exit reliably, let alone peaceful is a harsh reality, the solace in not having intervention against one's will would be a consolation towards the dreadful existence called life. What I mean is that if the government/State's power to infringement on an individual's civil liberties and personal freedoms in the name of safety and welfare are curtailed, such that they are not allowed to legally intervene against someone who is not infringing on another's rights engaging in unlawful activity, then that would still allow an individual to have some exit. Albeit it wouldn't be the best exit, but still better than having to endure sentience and having literally no bodily autonomy. In addition to this, if the State's power to intervene is curtailed, then it would also make it unlawful for individual citizens and Omnipotent Moral Busybodies to police around law abiding, peaceful citizens who are not infringing on others' liberties!

 

[Forever Sleep]

"The government should not be permitted the power to actively prevent people from accessing effective suicide methods. This should mean that they either allow medical assisted suicide, or get rid of the laws that are currently stopping people from accessing highly effective suicide methods through other channels, and the laws which permit (in fact obligate) the authorities to intervene to stop suicide attempts in progress." -existentialgoof

The only problem I have with this is- can you expect a retailer selling say SN to be able to make a decision on who they should be selling to? A child of 15? Someone suffering a psychotic break? How are they supposed to assess who gets to top themselves and who doesn't? Can they assess who wants to cure sausages and who wants to CTB even? How can it be up to them? Why would they even want to take that risk?

Depends really on whether you think there should be any 'gatekeeping' on the right to die. I know some people here think anything from the age of birth has that right but I feel like I could predict with reasonable accuracy that the first minor who goes will reverse the law immediately! It simply isn't practical.

What would be practical would be an official assessment process at authorised clinics. That's my feeling anyhow. I'm all for the right to die but thinking about it practically- where tech savy minors can probably get their hands on anything adults can- I don't think you can expect retailers to regulate the DIY CTB method. Of course- there will always be certain things they can't very well restrict- rope, a bus ticket to a bridge or cliff. Sadly though- how else are they going to protect their children- and it is their children I expect they worry about the most.

 

[TAW122]

"The government should not be permitted the power to actively prevent people from accessing effective suicide methods. This should mean that they either allow medical assisted suicide, or get rid of the laws that are currently stopping people from accessing highly effective suicide methods through other channels, and the laws which permit (in fact obligate) the authorities to intervene to stop suicide attempts in progress." -existentialgoof

The only problem I have with this is- can you expect a retailer selling say SN to be able to make a decision on who they should be selling to? A child of 15? Someone suffering a psychotic break? How are they supposed to assess who gets to top themselves and who doesn't? Can they assess who wants to cure sausages and who wants to CTB even? How can it be up to them? Why would they even want to take that risk?

Depends really on whether you think there should be any 'gatekeeping' on the right to die. I know some people here think anything from the age of birth has that right but I feel like I could predict with reasonable accuracy that the first minor who goes will reverse the law immediately! It simply isn't practical.

What would be practical would be an official assessment process at authorised clinics. That's my feeling anyhow. I'm all for the right to die but thinking about it practically- where tech savy minors can probably get their hands on anything adults can- I don't think you can expect retailers to regulate the DIY CTB method. Of course- there will always be certain things they can't very well restrict- rope, a bus ticket to a bridge or cliff. Sadly though- how else are they going to protect their children- and it is their children I expect they worry about the most.

You raise some very good points, and I suppose there could be some restrictions and concessions (which should be more than reasonable imo) for the procurement of methods and such. Like if there was a blanket ban on all effective, peaceful means to CTB, then there should be no intervention nor interference to stop a CTB in progress by the State (or anyone for the matter), unless the person is of course, a minor.

Regarding the restriction and verification of people who are trying to acquire said methods to CTB, in other responses by EG, he suggested that there be a "reasonable" waiting period (could be half a year, or a year at most for non-terminal cases, though much shorter and expedited for those whose conditions are terminal and death is in the foreseeable future).

I agree with you with regards to minors or even people who may have made a decision impulsively (rather than thinking through) such that a clinic or program would allow them to have the guaranteed, peaceful, and dignified exit (with minimal mess and trauma to others around them) after the person has made their decision and gone through the process. This would be more than a fair concession having a temporary exclusion/delay to CTB'ing, as long as the individual consents, insists, and meets the criteria. Of course, many pro-lifers would sadly, not even accept any concessions, which is why we are in the situation we have today: Impulsive and oftenly barbaric CTB's that end up traumatizing the public, one's family and loved ones, and/or people resorting to risky means to CTB, resulting in failure and additional suffering.


Also, this text was hard to read especially in Dark Mode, and had to highlight it in order to read what is written.

 

[AInilam]

"The government should not be permitted the power to actively prevent people from accessing effective suicide methods. This should mean that they either allow medical assisted suicide, or get rid of the laws that are currently stopping people from accessing highly effective suicide methods through other channels, and the laws which permit (in fact obligate) the authorities to intervene to stop suicide attempts in progress." -existentialgoof

The only problem I have with this is- can you expect a retailer selling say SN to be able to make a decision on who they should be selling to? A child of 15? Someone suffering a psychotic break? How are they supposed to assess who gets to top themselves and who doesn't? Can they assess who wants to cure sausages and who wants to CTB even? How can it be up to them? Why would they even want to take that risk?

Ironically, as a person of age I still suffer mental breakdowns from the pervasive invasiveness of omnipotent moral busybodies. I don't think this post was aimed at minors, like all potentially life threatening substances and responsibilities we get access to once we become of age, the right to privacy and autonomy should be given once you turn 21 at the very least. I agree that an official assessment should be done at a clinic beforehand.

 

[Forever Sleep]

Ironically, as a person of age I still suffer mental breakdowns from the pervasive invasiveness of omnipotent moral busybodies. I don't think this post was aimed at minors, like all potentially life threatening substances and responsibilities we get access to once we become of age, the right to privacy and autonomy should be given once you turn 21 at the very least. I agree that an official assessment should be done at a clinic beforehand.

I absolutely agree with both your and @TAW122 's response. Personally- I feel that legalising assisted suicide and putting in regulations to protect minors (without debhilitating illness) and impulsive attempts at a clinic is the way to go. Really- the only way to go if they truly want to allow sound minded adults to have autonomy over their own lives.

They obviously don't though! They'll most likely bring it in for the members of society they see no benefit in keeping on. Mostly those not paying in- the elderly, the sick moving on to perhaps the homeless and criminal. I expect more countries will embrace this idea in time.

That isn't really the problem though- seeing as that could be regulated. The problem is allowing access to the relatively peaceful methods to the general public. In which case- how do you expect sellers to regulate that? Demand to see ID? How can they tell whether the person is of sound mind though?

Depends whether you think it's possible for someone to CTB during a psychosis. I don't know for sure but, I imagine it's possible. Which brings us on to the second issue- intervention. How can a police officer or a member of the general public know if someone about to jump off a bridge is a minor or of sound mind without intervening? Even if they do talk to them- are they capable of assessing mental competency? Or- does that need to be done by someone trained in healthcare? I don't know- again.

I do hate the system as it stands too. I hate the hoops of fire we have to jump through. I hate the risks we have to put ourselves through. I hate the likelihood that- if we are caught, we'll likely be sectioned. Still- I just find it an extremely difficult thing to practically come up with solutions for.

For those of us that believe there should be some gatekeeping/ safeguarding with regards to allowing people to make their own suicide attempts- how could that work practically? The authorities would need to have made a competency assessment of us I suppose and then- just leave us to our own devices to off ourselves.

There's still the issue of grieving families though. It isn't just faceless beauracrats that are trying to stop us. It is our own families! How many people here do you think could convince their families to sit back and let them CTB? How many families would be ok with authorities knowing their loved one was suicidal, allowing them to buy a lethal substance and use it? I doubt many would... I reckon they'd be going after the system that allowed their loved one to die and the company that sold them the substance. Why would a company want that problem either?!!

I do understand why people feel so frustrated at the current system but I don't know what realistic alternatives there are. Can you think of any? Asides from assisted suicide clinics? Asides from assisted suicide in general? For the DIY CTB attemts- how do you regulate those?

 

[AInilam]

I absolutely agree with both your and @TAW122 's response. Personally- I feel that legalising assisted suicide and putting in regulations to protect minors (without debhilitating illness) and impulsive attempts at a clinic is the way to go. Really- the only way to go if they truly want to allow sound minded adults to have autonomy over their own lives.

They obviously don't though! They'll most likely bring it in for the members of society they see no benefit in keeping on. Mostly those not paying in- the elderly, the sick moving on to perhaps the homeless and criminal. I expect more countries will embrace this idea in time.

That isn't really the problem though- seeing as that could be regulated. The problem is allowing access to the relatively peaceful methods to the general public. In which case- how do you expect sellers to regulate that? Demand to see ID? How can they tell whether the person is of sound mind though?

Depends whether you think it's possible for someone to CTB during a psychosis. I don't know for sure but, I imagine it's possible. Which brings us on to the second issue- intervention. How can a police officer or a member of the general public know if someone about to jump off a bridge is a minor or of sound mind without intervening? Even if they do talk to them- are they capable of assessing mental competency? Or- does that need to be done by someone trained in healthcare? I don't know- again.

I do hate the system as it stands too. I hate the hoops of fire we have to jump through. I hate the risks we have to put ourselves through. I hate the likelihood that- if we are caught, we'll likely be sectioned. Still- I just find it an extremely difficult thing to practically come up with solutions for.

For those of us that believe there should be some gatekeeping/ safeguarding with regards to allowing people to make their own suicide attempts- how could that work practically? The authorities would need to have made a competency assessment of us I suppose and then- just leave us to our own devices to off ourselves.

There's still the issue of grieving families though. It isn't just faceless beauracrats that are trying to stop us. It is our own families! How many people here do you think could convince their families to sit back and let them CTB? How many families would be ok with authorities knowing their loved one was suicidal, allowing them to buy a lethal substance and use it? I doubt many would... I reckon they'd be going after the system that allowed their loved one to die and the company that sold them the substance. Why would a company want that problem either?!!

I do understand why people feel so frustrated at the current system but I don't know what realistic alternatives there are. Can you think of any? Asides from assisted suicide clinics? Asides from assisted suicide in general? For the DIY CTB attemts- how do you regulate those?

Some would argue that in order to take your life you'll have to suffer from a moment of psychosis in order to go through with it. It's no easy to feat. Also, I'm 100% sure no one I know irl is trying to intervene or interfere. The way these ''busybodies'' go about it is far more sadistic and at times counterintuitive (so much so that I'm not even sure if they're trying to save me from myself or push me to go through with it), nothing I'd expect from family (many of them aren't that techy/internet literate) but then again who knows, all the more reason to ctb if it did turn out to be them behind it.

 

[TAW122]

Ironically, as a person of age I still suffer mental breakdowns from the pervasive invasiveness of omnipotent moral busybodies. I don't think this post was aimed at minors, like all potentially life threatening substances and responsibilities we get access to once we become of age, the right to privacy and autonomy should be given once you turn 21 at the very least. I agree that an official assessment should be done at a clinic beforehand.

That seems like a good standard because at 21 (in most/almost all places) one is considered a fully fledged legal adult (by the legal definition of an adult).

I absolutely agree with both your and @TAW122 's response. Personally- I feel that legalising assisted suicide and putting in regulations to protect minors (without debhilitating illness) and impulsive attempts at a clinic is the way to go. Really- the only way to go if they truly want to allow sound minded adults to have autonomy over their own lives.

They obviously don't though! They'll most likely bring it in for the members of society they see no benefit in keeping on. Mostly those not paying in- the elderly, the sick moving on to perhaps the homeless and criminal. I expect more countries will embrace this idea in time.

That isn't really the problem though- seeing as that could be regulated. The problem is allowing access to the relatively peaceful methods to the general public. In which case- how do you expect sellers to regulate that? Demand to see ID? How can they tell whether the person is of sound mind though?

Depends whether you think it's possible for someone to CTB during a psychosis. I don't know for sure but, I imagine it's possible. Which brings us on to the second issue- intervention. How can a police officer or a member of the general public know if someone about to jump off a bridge is a minor or of sound mind without intervening? Even if they do talk to them- are they capable of assessing mental competency? Or- does that need to be done by someone trained in healthcare? I don't know- again.

I do hate the system as it stands too. I hate the hoops of fire we have to jump through. I hate the risks we have to put ourselves through. I hate the likelihood that- if we are caught, we'll likely be sectioned. Still- I just find it an extremely difficult thing to practically come up with solutions for.

For those of us that believe there should be some gatekeeping/ safeguarding with regards to allowing people to make their own suicide attempts- how could that work practically? The authorities would need to have made a competency assessment of us I suppose and then- just leave us to our own devices to off ourselves.

There's still the issue of grieving families though. It isn't just faceless beauracrats that are trying to stop us. It is our own families! How many people here do you think could convince their families to sit back and let them CTB? How many families would be ok with authorities knowing their loved one was suicidal, allowing them to buy a lethal substance and use it? I doubt many would... I reckon they'd be going after the system that allowed their loved one to die and the company that sold them the substance. Why would a company want that problem either?!!

I do understand why people feel so frustrated at the current system but I don't know what realistic alternatives there are. Can you think of any? Asides from assisted suicide clinics? Asides from assisted suicide in general? For the DIY CTB attemts- how do you regulate those?

Good points and yes, the clinics is really the best concession in all worlds because it allows a compromise of a waiting period (to filter out impulsive decisions and also gives people a chance to reconsider, try other treatments before going through with an irreversible decision) as well doing so in a reliable, peaceful, and dignified manner. Sadly, many pro-lifers just do not agree with it and would almost never accept even a concession. Having DIY CTB attempts however is risky and is the consequence of our current paternalistic, prohibitive society when it comes to the right to die. On one hand, while I understand it can inconvenience and otherwise upset people (especially when the DIY CTBs attempts end up scarring, inconveniencing, or otherwise troubling people), but I also am frustrated at the fact that the very same pro-lifers would 100% reject having any concessions. This (to me) means that they somehow bear the cost and consequences of prohibition. Logically speaking, pro-lifers can't have it both ways; they can't refuse to allow concessions (in which would alleviate their current concerns or at least make it less impactful and disruptive) and then be upset at the consequences of not allowing said concessions (with the results of impulsive and risky DIY CTB attempts that either result in horrific injuries, failure, or even negatively impacting their day to day lives!). Of course, I will say that I don't endorse, risky and barbaric methods and understand the impact of them, but I see it as the unfortunate consequence of the society we live in currently.

Some would argue that in order to take your life you'll have to suffer from a moment of psychosis in order to go through with it. It's no easy to feat. Also, I'm 100% sure no one I know irl is trying to intervene or interfere. The way these ''busybodies'' go about it is far more sadistic and at times counterintuitive (so much so that I'm not even sure if they're trying to save me from myself or push me to go through with it), nothing I'd expect from family (many of them aren't that techy/internet literate) but then again who knows, all the more reason to ctb if it did turn out to be them behind it.

Exactly and well said. The problem with these "busybodies" is that they don't solve the problem (or sometimes they simply can't), but rather just sweep it under the rug and all the while acting pompous and superior about it. It's quite wretched, paternalistic, and of course, sadistic. For an skeptic, if one is truly honest with oneself, one would question why the CTB rates have been going up and why there are people attempting more despite the expanded funding and treatment towards the MHS. One could eventually arrive at the conclusion that the problem are the societal conditions in which cause/push people towards CTB and not because the person's mind is defective or because of a flaw in their character. Ironically, many pro-lifers who claim to (want to) fix societal problems are only paying lip service and virtue signaling. Why? Because they have many years, decades and more, yet they still haven't done much, let alone started to. It's far easier to virtue signal and sound helpful than it is to actually start addressing and fixing systemic issues and creating a world that would be more palatable to everyone. It's also (sadly) far easier for the pro-lifers to denounce and demonize the RTD than it is to face reality and perhaps examine the virtue and value of life (which is something that they don't even question).