Young woman viewed suicide forums before ingesting fatal poison she bought online

[OzymandiAsh]

i dont understand this, if it was done with a rope would they try and ban rope? its so true its easy to blame the substance, instead of self reflecting on what they could have done better.

For real!!! Would they have preferred that she used a more violent method? Dafuq.

RIP.

 

[corpse]

I wish I were as beautiful as her. Rest in peace.

 

[WhatCouldHaveBeen32]

I hate seeing this as well like it implies that people cannot be pretty and commit suicide at the same time but maybe I'm just bitter.

That too, but to me it mostly seems like objectification or just performative comments, if they really cared and wanted to give a REAL compliment, they could read in THE FIRST FUCKING PARAGRAPH that she volunteered for mental health charity, wanted to study psychology...she wanted a better world and yet the people compliment the beauty, the physical one, not the beauty of the soul, obviously, because why would they actually give a compliment that has any fucking weight at all.

 

[WakingNightmare]

Ready for the morons in the comments to be even more outraged only because she was good looking

 

[WishICouldGo]

I hate seeing this as well like it implies that people cannot be pretty and commit suicide at the same time but maybe I'm just bitter.

I think like it also implies that people would be far less saddened or wouldn't care as much if she wasn't conventionally beautiful. Like, "oh she was ugly as sin so who cares" .

 

[betternever2havbeen]

It's not so much a matter of agreeing or disagreeing as it is just leaving a family be to grieve their loss.

Anger is part of the grieving process, and sometimes that anger can be misplaced. When that happens, it's up to institutional support systems (government officials, the media, healthcare workers, etc.) to help the family through that as part of helping them through the grieving process as a whole.

Here, the UK government has an ongoing crusade against this forum, and the Daily Mail is prioritizing clickbait headlines over nuanced journalism. Both these institutions are failing to address the larger picture, and in this, the members of this forum aren't the only ones being failed. The family is being failed, too.


The Daily Mail won't be interested in a productive discussion of any kind, but if you or anyone else has time for a bit of reading, I (and many others) did expound on this topic in a different thread a couple months ago: https://sanctioned-suicide.net/threads/new-article-on-sasu.216430/post-3141760 (wru Sophie Wilkinson?)

OK I see where you're coming from. It's just they make very serious allegations (not just them but a lot of the families) and never have any proof to back it up. I don't like how they can just say whatever they want and no one questions them on it or asks for where all this proof of encouragement supposedly is. And also the thing is, that it must be so much harder on top of the grief to have anger at the forum and literally lay the blame completely on this place (or sellers of SN) I just think they're torturing themselves even more for no reason. If they've got proof she somehow was encouraged then by all means I'll take that back, we just don't know though we're just supposed to take their word for it. I guess that's why they don't let grieving family members create laws etc.

I will read that link thanks!

 

[Michi_Violeta]

I'll say this to Tom Lawrence, and any journalist browsing this website, as a former journalist myself and an MA in Media Studies:

You do journalism without empathy. Write away: you're part of the reason why many of us want out of this world. But don't for a fucking second think you're saving lives or that you're smarter than the people here, because you're the one who failed in your mission to communicate reality with nuance, impartiality, and empathy. And fucking ChatGPT can perfectly replace you if that's how you're gonna do your job: you're as mediocre as you're callous.

I wouldn't expect you to understand anything from your vantage point of privilege, Tom Lawrence, or whoever you are. You've lived an easy life, you carry no life-changing trauma, hell, you've lived an easier life than most of us just by virtue of being British and writing for the fucking Daily Mail. You haven't suffered what an emotionally abused woman has gone through, you aren't a rape survivor, you weren't maimed by a quack surgeon, you weren't abandoned by your father at birth only to see your ersatz father figure die when you were 13.

Articles like this are an embarrassment to your profession and you're writing words with the least empathy possible in the name of clicks. You're a fucking disgrace to journalism, you're the reason why it's seen as such an untrustworthy profession nowadays, you're the reason why communications are devoid of intersubjectivity nowadays. I'd ask you to do better, but I know empathy is a tall order for you lot because, apparently, asking a writer to have imagination is asking for too much.

PS: it's clear you chose the pictures of this woman thinking with your dick and not your journalistic decorum. I'm sure she had hundreds of pictures that weren't in revealing dresses or showed so much cleavage, but hey, apparently "sex sells" is all you had to learn to earn your title in communications. "Pornomiseria", is the term in Spanish we used to deride pseudo-journalists like you: you turn misery into porn, tragedy into clicks. You're disgusting.

 

[cme-dme]

That too, but to me it mostly seems like objectification or just performative comments, if they really cared and wanted to give a REAL compliment, they could read in THE FIRST FUCKING PARAGRAPH that she volunteered for mental health charity, wanted to study psychology...she wanted a better world and yet the people compliment the beauty, the physical one, not the beauty of the soul, obviously, because why would they actually give a compliment that has any fucking weight at all.

Yes, that as well. Just love seeing that the first thing some people think to do when somebody commits suicide is objectify that person... :/

 

[itsgone2]

@Michi_Violeta makes a good point. They probably had plenty of pics of her from social media and decided to run with the ones that were the most revealing. Which is crazy.
I'm going to assume when people comment on beauty in replies that it's somewhat innocent. To me it was notable because she also had nice clothes and was in school, so kind of seemed like she had a future, not in poverty, and blessed with great features, so goodness if someone like that is suicidal what hope is there for anyone.
But next thought was it doesn't matter. It can hit anyone.
And she actually went through with it, so her pain must have been deep.

 

[Blueberry Panic]

It's never about the people around them that didnt help her in her time of need its always about the who and how ... smh I fucking hate this planet.

 

[Whale_bones]

"The substance is believed to have cost at least 133 deaths in the UK". I'm assuming the word they're looking for is "caused"... Apparently the author of this article didn't think it was worth doing a once-over to find obvious mistakes. Of course, the occasional mistake can happen at any level of journalism, but places like the Daily Mail just spew out article after article with no thought or care for what they're writing.

It's really appalling how they focus so much on her physical appearance. What does that have to do with suicide or the forum? Nothing, that's what, but the Daily Mail chooses to make a dramatic, sensationalized article that will get them clicks, rather than respecting her as a human being who was suffering.