“If someone’s life is so awful that they want to die by suicide, why stop them?”
I am frequently asked some variation of this question, even by mental health professionals. Once, a therapist told me about a client of hers with schizophrenia. “He is miserable, and he will always have schizophrenia. I think letting him kill himself is humane.”
I am passionate about suicide prevention. My stance often draws the ire of people who think that people should have the right to end their own life without interference by well-meaning others.
To my mind, there are many reasons to stop someone from suicide. (I am not, by the way, including “death with dignity” or “hastened death.” That’s grist for another discussion.)
Before going into those reasons, I want to make clear that I don’t take intervention lightly. I don’t call the police if someone discloses suicidal thoughts. I don’t think people should be involuntarily committed to a hospital except in the most extreme circumstances, like if someone has a gun in their car and tells me they are going to shoot themselves when they leave my office, without any desire or will to come up with an alternative. I consider myself to be a therapist who doesn’t panic about suicide.
Why Prevent Suicide?
Except in very limited circumstances, such as states where physician-assisted death is legal for people with terminal illness, I believe that therapists should never give up helping a suicidal person to stay alive.
The most important reason to prevent suicide is that suicidal crises, though formidable and painful, almost always are temporary. Even if the person continues thinking about suicide, the intense suicidal intent usually subsides. Consider that 90% of people who survive a suicide attempt do not go on to die by suicide. That number is very revealing. Even among people who wanted to die so strongly that they tried to end their life, most ultimately chose to live.
As long as a person is alive, things can change for the better. Situations change. Even if their external situation is unchangeable, they may discover things that make their life worth living. There is always the possibility that they may find ways to cope. Or they may come to appreciate different things in life. They may even find a purpose in life that gives their loss or trauma meaning.
Kevin Hines is a suicide prevention advocate who, years ago, jumped off of the Golden Gate Bridge, the site in the U.S. with the most suicides every year. Death is almost certain when one jumps from the bridge. More than 1,500 people are known to have jumped to their death, and only 30 or so are known to have survived. So when Kevin jumped from the Golden Gate Bridge, he was absolutely intent on dying. And yet, even with that intention, the moment he jumped off the bridge, he instantly regretted his decision.
His experience is one of many (including my own story) that illustrates that the wish to die is fluid. It comes and goes to varying degrees. A great many people who are saved from suicide are thankful, sooner or later, to be alive.
Is Suicide Rational?
Another important reason to prevent suicide is because, proponents of rational suicide notwithstanding, suicide is often irrational.
Some research indicates that 90% of people who die by suicide had a diagnosable mental illness at the time of their death (though more recently, some evidence indicates that not as many people who die by suicide have a mental illness diagnosis).
Mental illness distorts thinking. What is bad can seem good, and vice versa. Often, very often, when a person’s mental health improves, the wish to die goes away.
Some people contest the high estimates of mental illness in suicide. Even if we presume the 90% figure is correct, not everyone who dies by suicide has a mental illness. Other things besides mental illness can also distort one’s thinking, such as substance use, sleep deprivation, and trauma.
When people address these issues, they often join the legions who seriously considered suicide or made an attempt, and who many years later live to tell about it.
Revised on May 30, 2017, this post was originally titled “‘If Someone’s Life is So Awful that They Want to Die, Why Stop Them?'”
© Copyright 2013 Stacey Freedenthal, PhD, LCSW. All rights Reserved. Written For: Speaking of Suicide. Photos purchased from Fotolia.com
Today is my 69th birthday. My landlord gave me a 30-day notice to vacate at the start of August because she is selling this building, the last marginally affordable property in our old Midwest city, to a luxury developer. I saw the writing on the wall so four months ago spent my credit to visit all over the US to look at “affordable housing”. I visited the South, the Midwest, the Mountain Region. I didn’t visit the Coasts because all the US data says they’re absurdly expensive.
I have two sons. I haven’t seen either in more than 15 years since their wives got pregnant. I’ve seen my grandkids once each but get Christmas cards with their photos. Every year they say they’ll visit, something else comes up. I volunteer nearly every night in my neighborhood. I know it’s important work but it doesn’t make me feel any better. I was a social worker in Chicago for 18 years before finishing a DSW, then teaching about and specializing in elder depression risk factors and services (including isolation). I’ve worked with some of the leading specialists in this field at Harvard, Stanford, U Chicago, Penn… Thousands upon thousands of academic papers are published on the effects of loneliness, but nothing substantive is done. Why? Because you can’t force or even entice people to be with those they don’t want.
My wife used to be a psychiatric nurse until cancer put her in the hospital between insurance coverages. No insurance company would take her so I worked double time while caring for her. It wiped out our savings. Including a second mortgage on our house. She died. I was distraught. And lonely. My kids never spent a single night with me. I cried out to my friends. They all stopped talking to me. I know how grief affects communities. Again, I’ve seen it all before.
I lost my teaching post at the university because they wanted a different type of professor. When I filed a discrimination law suit, I lost on the grounds that it is legal to displace male faculty for non-male faculty due to federal guideline about what constitutes discrimination. I was the second most published faculty member in our department. Oh well. I couldn’t pay off the second mortgage or even come up with enough to pay the taxes on my house so the city auctioned off my house and threw me out. Now I have less than $200 in savings, no place I can afford to live (trust me that I’ve tried all the venues I counseled my own clients about for over 45 years), and will be homeless in less than a month.
At nearly 70, my body can’t take the stresses working at a local Walmart would mean–if I could get hired. I’ve sent out nearly 1000 resumes in the last 2 years alone. I’ve also paid professionals to redo my resume and LinkedIn profile. I even got an ESL/EFL certificate. I’m too old to work in the US and abroad. Thousands of resumes. Not a single job offer. Yes, I’ve tried to companies that advertise interest in older workers.
Why am I sharing all of this? Not at all for pity. For nearly 50 years, I’ve seen or read about this happening to tens of thousands of clients over the decades. When my wife, whom I loved more than everything else in the world, died, I knew it would happen to me, too. Not because we didn’t plan. But because these things can just happen. To a lot more people than you think.
Dr. Freedenthall claims suicide is never justified. As an ex-professor of social work and a field worker of nearly half a century, I’d like to ask Dr. Freedenthall how the people who want to stay alive but who don’t have the money to anymore and who, for a million different reasons, the government isn’t able or willing to help stay alive, are SUPPOSED to stay alive. I’ve read some good arguments, including here, about why suicide should be allowed, with s0me limits. If society doesn’t have the resources to keep people alive, it makes no sense to tell people they should stay alive. It doesn’t matter what some thing SHOULD happen. Nice thoughts or words alone don’t keep the destitute alive. First you provide the means. THEN you gain some entitlement to talk about “alternatives.” Until then, what a slap in the face to say suicide is never justified while people are homeless or dying from isolation (Google it; isolation kills) or abuse no one has a societal cure for.
From one “Old Geezer” to another, if you are still out there please respond. You are not alone. I have a story of my own.
Please check out Minnesota: https://mn.gov/dhs/partners-and-providers/policies-procedures/housing-and-homelessness/housing-stabilization-services/housing-stabilization-services.jsp
Even in Minnesota “services” can end up being what a bull does with a cow. But a lot of the time in Minnesota, the “services” really do help A LOT.
Thank you for sharing the tragedies you’ve faced. I’m happy you are still here. Thank you for all the people you’ve helped, although it didn’t help you even emotionally/personal well-being. I pray you find housing. Although I don’t know how you would get to Minnesota if that were a successful option for you – I pray others help you out. Praying is as much as I can do, but sorry it’s a vague something.
I’m very sorry – I see now this doesn’t come out until July of 2020.
A place such as this maybe could help: https://ststephensmpls.org/get-help . It’s about homeless shelters
Willmar, MN has stuff such as this: https://www.shelterlistings.org/city/willmar-mn.html . I grew up in Spicer, just 10 miles north of Willmar. Willmar has a lot of resources, and the people providing the resources are actually helpful.
But, I’m seeing internet info that in MN there are homeless people NOT using shelters – that’s not a good thing. July 2020 can’t come fast enough – and of course it really can’t be believed it’s going to happen until it happens.
There’s a success story of getting a 73 year old a one room apt. on a sliding fee scale: https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2017/04/22/minn-a22.html . It sounds as though her only income is a meager social security check.
It IS an insult to say it is never justified. Those who believe that may never know the true essense of true anguish, true solitide, pain that is of the unthinkable.
I came across your site by accident after a bad day someone pointed out to me that I was lucky and had got people who I could turn to for help I know that but in that moment of despair you don’t think though I should also point out to someone how much in resources it costs the police and emergency services doesn’t help I wasn’t stupid and feel bad about that but someone who should have known better didn’t need to point it out to me and it just made me more depressed after I saw them today but I feel better for reading your site and have wrote the website details down to tell them many many thanks I will be looking regularly at your site
So happy you found this site! The author of the article is very understanding.
With all that’s going on in the US right now politically, it’s not surprising that on such a sensitive subject as suicide people have very different views. But I have a question of practicality. If you’re unable to help people acquire the resources they need to stay alive, how exactly are they supposed to keep living? In my line of work, I’ve come to know several elders who committed suicide because they had run out of money to stay alive. And because our culture values, in most other settings at least, personal freedom so much, the family of these elders were entitled to neglect them for decades so they had no assistance. What was available from the state was far too little so that the elders had become homeless. So they chose to leave.
Happenings like the above are very sad for those of us who come to care about the people who leave. I was around when several of these people, decades earlier, were facing increasing age discrimination and couldn’t find work so had to exhaust their savings to stay alive. While the cost of housing exploded. Yesterday in a town hall meeting, our jurisdiction formally defended landlords’ rights to expand rental criteria to include not only KYC identification documents (social security card, driver’s license…) but thorough financial documents–401k statements, a minimum of 6 months of pay stubs, 12 months of bank statements, credit card and bank account balances… Many residents have faithfully paid rent for over 25 years but could never pass the new financial rental criteria that have come about thanks to federal KYC guidelines. Our mayor asserted that landlords have a right to know the financial liquidity of people they allow in their investment properties. The impoverished elderly, disabled, and homeless and their advocates who showed up for the week-long battle at our city hall were all shut down. Reports from all over the US show these problems are very common and getting worse. No one in the US has offered a viable solution for over 30 years.
I don’t mean to go on and on, but for those who argue that suicide is never right, what are you offering the people who can’t AFFORD to stay alive and who have been tossed out of society as useless and unemployable? What are you giving them so they are ABLE to keep living? Sometimes staying alive isn’t merely a choice. It costs money, lots, to stay alive in our capitalist society that deifies constant economic growth and profits for those who can afford the admission ticket to the business world. In the Developing World, for example, we’re commodifying drinking water locals have freely depended on for centuries such that they can no longer even afford the water in their own back yards. These are the realities in which people are struggling to stay alive.
In reading these comments from start to finish, it seems to me that the people who say suicide is never the right choice aren’t even listening to the pain from people who share WHY they’re suicidal. A lot of people are suicidal because they’re desperate. They’re lonely, suffering from chronic pain medicine can’t or won’t help with, too poor to afford astronomical rents. Employers don’t want to hire them so they never get the money they need to stay alive. And the US Supreme Court ruled a few years ago to make it far harder to prove age discrimination in court. So a problem we all know is wide-spread we’ve just swept under the rug. Meanwhile, mental health therapy doesn’t solve these problems.
The practical question, then, is if you can’t give people the resources they NEED to stay alive and you can’t “fix” society, why are you lecturing them that they HAVE to stay alive? That sounds contradictory to me. And please let’s not insult each other with semantics. If you CAN help people, awesome. I don’t think anyone is against doing that. But for those you can’t help enough (jobs, money, housing…), it seems cruel not to give them the help they need but then guilt them into thinking they have to stick around to suffer more. And while bad circumstance MIGHT change, statisticians and university scholars have shown over and over again how low the probability of escaping lifelong poverty is. This is especially true for certain demographics, like the homeless and the elderly.
Someone else said in this comment section that if you save someone’s life, then you should be responsible for it. I agree and think if this were an official policy there’d be FAR fewer people arguing suicide is always the wrong choice.
Thank you so much for making this point and eloquently so. This is extremely well said and a vital, vital point to be made. It is my thinking, too.
I literally feel I have zero places to look for “help.” Real help. Actual help. Because I have no money. And I can’t GET money like this or from here. I can’t “just” get help for myself, I would if I could. It is not even a matter of being brave enough to ask for help, even. (For some it is, I understand, I speak of my own circumstance). Tell who that I would want to kill myself? And why? What for? So they can stress about it? They can’t pay for my life. What help I do receive from those around me, I feel so guilty about. Bits of paper here and there that mean whether or not I can eat or buy necessities. In desperate and determined times, I have asked for sums a month for therapy. And I went, thinking maybe it WILL help me. It didn’t do more than I was already doing for myself, I found. (Though may have been more so helpful with just the right therapist while in a stable situation).
Society only views me as a leech. I have that swirling around in my head all of the time. I am alive right now only because there are people who can provide for me in one way or another if truly needed. But how long will that last? And how much strain am I putting on them? Sometimes they themselves don’t even understand why it is I am where I am and that sentiment reverberates. I feel endlessly misunderstood and set aside and like a failure. A failure at living. Every day there is guilt and every day there is weight and every day there is another day to dread for I am not “on my own two feet.”
I feel like a giant woman-baby who doesn’t want to be; who can speak, have complex thought, build meaningful things, so on… I hate that people view me as dependent on others because I don’t FEEL like that. I FEEL independent without the freedom to be. I would rather go wandering off myself and figure myself out, my life, all by myself. But I can’t. Go where? Do what? Police don’t want your face anywhere. People don’t want your face anywhere. If it isn’t shut behind concrete you paid for. It is complicated for some reason to have a talk about. In my experience, people don’t really have sympathy for not being able to “make it.” And, fine. Really. But… might I kill myself for my own sake? Yeah. And will people come to my funeral (or not) wondering “why”? Yeah.
Lith – wow, I really resonate with all of what you said. Especially:
I literally feel I have zero places to look for “help.” Real help. Actual help. Because I have no money. And I can’t GET money like this or from here. I can’t “just” get help for myself, I would if I could. It is not even a matter of being brave enough to ask for help, even.
&
I have asked for sums a month for therapy. And I went, thinking maybe it WILL help me. It didn’t do more than I was already doing for myself, I found.
&
Sometimes they themselves don’t even understand why it is I am where I am and that sentiment reverberates.
&
Every day there is guilt and every day there is weight and every day there is another day to dread for I am not “on my own two feet.”
Wow – I’ve been there, thankfully to a lesser extreme that you are there. I now stay away from “help” because the money it costs makes my situation worse. I only do as well as I do because of financial supports. And I feel bad about any financial support I get because I’m a “black hole” – so the money is better used elsewhere to at least accomplish something constructive.
I’m still in that situation, but to a lesser extreme than it was, because I moved to a better area for me (thankfully I received financial help to move)
If you had enough consistent financial help, I’m confident you could get on your feet. And, you’d stay on your feet with a little help now and then. I hate that others don’t understand who have their act together.
The best place that has helped me several times is Independent Living Services. They can’t do enough – but at least for me they always head in a direction for helping because they don’t even turn a person like me away. They are not prejudice for who to help (that I’ve ever come across) – and a lot of that has to do with that their funding is rigged by that the more people they help, the more funding they get.
Sorry for talking so much about my situation. I’m not always the best listener because I do comparisons because that ‘s what I do to try to understand. I like it when people try to understand me, so I definitely try to understand others.
I’m happy your’re living (coming from a person who hasn’t met you in person) even though it feels like you are “a failure at living.” Wow is that a true feeling for me, too. I do hope you’ll keep trying (and me, too – on some level I value life despite being a leech)
“
You’re right. There’s also the reason I’ve had which you have stated before. When you have no money to stay alive, such kind of thinking comes easily to our mind. And actually, God is the last which can help us. All we can do is to lean on God’s help.
It’s convenient for the suicide-is-always-wrong camp to ignore the physical prerequisites of survival and the wealth of data that survival is harder and harder for a growing segment of the population. Or maybe these pundits mean suicide is wrong for the right kind of people, those sufficiently valued by their communities and cultures that people are willing to act on their behalf to mitigate some of the economic and other insufficient survival resources causes of suicidal preoccupation. An acquaintance of mine and I tonight had a long conversation about fellow citizens who’re vehemently opposed to abortion for any reason and who’re equally opposed to end of life self determination but who then refuse to support any interventions designed to make life gentler for the struggling. They aren’t paying for–aren’t willing to pay for–others to stay alive but yet still they demand others stay alive. Hypocrisy much?
Sheila, I apologise for saying your comments had upset me. I myself have previously been an advocate for suicide prevention especially from a political and Christian point of view. But I have learnt from a personal point of view that everyones circumstances are different and must be taken individually into consideration. People seem too keen to make generalizations on the matter. I see a very good councilor who knows me and my circumstances well, I am level headed, I know myself, I can make informed decisions and that is why I have decided to end my life than be homeless at my age with no resources or support. It is a very dangerous and hard place to be and I simply would not survive long. I have no family or loved ones to consider either. But by no means would I make that kind of judgement for anyone else who is homeless, as we are all different and have varying capacity for survival.
Thea May, thank you for your apology. I agree with you on this about suicide, “But I have learnt from a personal point of view that everyones circumstances are different and must be taken individually into consideration.”
That is so true.
Thank you for sharing the personal details of your situation.
I still do not know what I said that upset you.
It’s really nice when you go to a mental hospital to seek help, only to find out that you can’t leave without permission (so much about “voluntary” commitment), you see a lot of nurses abusing patients and so on.Basically like a prison.
Best 3 weeks of my life.
Thank you Aiah Z for your post May 15 2019. I was upset after reading Sheila Bliss post but couldn’t put it into words as you have done. In particular addressing the issues around quality of life and stats on the number of people who actually go on to take their lives after an attempt, as a reference to the fact that an individual shouldn’t have responsibility for the decision to end their life if they choose. Maybe they don’t attempt so readily again because of the fear of another failure and the consequences that involves. The survival instinct is ingrained in all living beings and we learn to adjust to the most horrendous conditions, but that certainly does not equate to any quality of life or lack of regret, suffering and pain. Society, culture and environment have to a large extent controlled my life to where I will be homeless in the forseeable future, struggling to survive without anything to keep me going. I simply do not want to live that way and believe I have a right to make that decision to end it. No one sitting in the comfort of their home should have the right to tell me otherwise, yet society, culture and religion confirms the belief that we do have the right and power to dictate and control how others less fortunate live and end their lives, it never ends. Its a cruel punishment. Justice and fairness can only come when we address quality of life for each individual, but sadly that is not the world we live in.
@Thea May Thank you for being vulnerable in being so honest. You’re right that it’s a cruel, unjustifiable punishment both to create an admittedly competitive culture that values people based on their credentials, capacities, wealth, appearance, age and other characteristics they have little control over with the cost that if someone doesn’t sufficiently satisfy our culture’s wants and values they can be treated profoundly hurtfully in ways researchers already know can even be lethal, but yet both assert, hypocritically, that such a human life is valuable and prohibit the individual from choosing, instead, not to play the game our culture has devised. Researchers who study the effects of different kinds of cultures on the average citizen’s happiness or mental health have for decades published evidence that certain kinds of cultures minimize the risks for depression and other mental states related to suicide. But at least in the US, enough of us do not want such cultures so we vote against the kinds of protective changes empiricism shows to nurture mental health and decrease suicidal ideation. Psychologists and other mental health professionals, though I acknowledge their interests in helping people, haven’t provided tools that eliminate or substantially measurably decrease the very real, significant problems scholars know threaten mental health. Until we are willing or able to make these changes, these otherwise potentially beneficial tools available to many will remain little more than Bandaids. And, of course, none of this gets at the root questions of whether value is an objective thing we’re intellectually obligated to recognize or whether someone is “sick” for thinking about life differently from the majority.
I wish there were something I could do to solve your situation. I really do.
Yeah, Thea May, I’m feeling upset after reading your post. You’ve no idea what I’ve gone through being carelessly left to make uninformed decisions, or what it was like for me when I was making decisions during a time I was of unsound judgement and didn’t realize it. You’ve no idea the times I was stupid and was saved from making an uniformed decision by someone giving me further information I didn’t know about, and then still got to make a decision myself – a different decision that had far better results/consequences than the original uniformed decision would have.
You know, I NEVER said a suicidal person is incapable of making an informed decision with unimpaired judgement. Yet, you are throwing it in my face that I don’t matter, and I ought not be grateful to people who eventually recognized my judgement was impaired, and ought not be grateful to people for recognizing I was being stupid and offered me help for making an informed decision.
You said, “Justice and fairness can only come when we address quality of life for each individual, but sadly that is not the world we live in.” I agree. So please do that rather than throwing me to the curbside saying I’ve upset you without any explanation as to how.
Sheila,
Unfortunately, those of us who advocate for suicide prevention expose ourselves to push-back and criticism. I understand. I question my own views, too, as I note in another comment to you on this page. The tensions between respecting a person’s self-determination and protecting imminently suicidal people are impossible to resolve; we can’t do both.
I would like to gently encourage you not to take such push-back and criticism personally. It didn’t seem to me that Thea’s comment attacked you. I can’t speak for her, of course, so I’m speaking only to the impression her words left on me.
I also want to say I’m glad that others helped you, Thea, and I’m grateful you’re still here. Thanks for sharing your story. I’m certain it helps some others out there who read it, even if they are unlikely to leave a comment saying so.
Dr. Stacey Freedenthal – Thank you for your kind words and balanced perspective.
Yes, I do easily take things personally.
I really like this that you explain in the other post to me:
“Obviously, there’s a great deal of variation on the spectrum of suicidality and connection to reality. I don’t know of a solution that will please everyone. I just know that if someone who would otherwise want to live is on the verge of dying because of delirium, intoxication, or other forces, then I want others to have the ability to help protect them.”
How to protect everyone (including rights what to do with your own life)? How to treat everyone ethically and with dignity?
I also liked how you explained, “It also needs to be about helping to lessen the person’s misery. There are social forces (e.g., unemployment, homelessness, poverty) that increase suicide risk. Those need to be addressed, too!”
One of your own comments is by quote: “I doubt all suicide people are going by their feelings over facts, but it’s looking like 90% are doing it.” Claiming you never said that is a lie i can’t even believe you’d thought of getting away with considering your very own comment contradicting it is LITERALLY RIGHT UNDER THIS FUCKING ONE! And if you think it can be excused with “☝️🤓 erm achthually i didn’t say ALL, just nearly every single one” that’s not gonna fly by me.
And stacey freedenthal, i don’t like the implications of the word “unfortunately” you used. Yes, it must be so “unfortunate” listening to victims of involuntary hospitalization, myself included, talk about getting physically, verbally, and sexually abused in such graphic detail. I bet it’s real difficult justifying that.
I’m not even sorry for the brashness. People are getting gruesomely tortured, some of whom may have not made it to tell the tale, and Sheila still had the gall to proclaim it should be illegal to kill yourself by quoting a statistic so many other users on here have disproven repeatedly. If she changed the topic from suicide to anything else, her comment probably would get deleted from most platforms for violating some rule like “denying atrocities.”
Anonymous,
I can’t find the comment you’re referring to; I even did a search of the comments. Just FYI.
Thanks for sharing here. I understand your anger at a system that does grievous harm to some people. The issue is that some people, like Sheila, are grateful for the same system having saved their life. Not to mention, some people are helped *and* harmed by the same system.
Thea,
Thanks for sharing your story here. I’m very sorry about your suffering. I agree with you that suicide prevention should not only be about keeping a miserable person alive. It also needs to be about helping to lessen the person’s misery. There are social forces (e.g., unemployment, homelessness, poverty) that increase suicide risk. Those need to be addressed, too!
If you decide you do want help, I hope you will consider calling the National Suicide Prevention Lifeline at 800-273-8255, texting 741-741, or using other resources listed here.
Stacy,
It has been a while since I was on here. This I expect to be my last visit. I used to see this as an open forum with a healthy exchange of ideas. Now I’m seeing it as just a platform to propagate a pro life regardless of reality argument. I miss the old feeling. It actually helped me not feel alone and judged as much. I’m not sure what is different, if you’ve changed nothing then maybe it’s me.
For my last go, here is my reason that suicide should be allowed.
Can death be prevented entirely? If yes then great, regardless of the issue there is plenty of time to fix it, 100 years of hell is a small percentage of an infinite lifespan. If no then there have to be hopeless situations, 50 years of hell followed buy 1 min of not hell then dying as an example.
I am reasonably sure that death is not preventable thus I argue that hopeless situations must exist.
Assuming they do now the question is whom should have the say on the evaluation of what an individual is experiencing. Should it be someone with knowledge of the experiences or should it be someone that has no actual knowledge of them?
I would argue that it should be the person with the most knowledge of the experiences of the individual in question. That person would of course be the person experiencing them because they have direct access to the information source. Unless there is some scientifically proven form of accurately reading a persons mind, everyone is really just guessing.
Again, I am reasonably sure that nobody is out there reading minds so I will move forward with the evaluation is performed by the individual experiencing it.
Now the question is who should get to decide what to do about the situation. Should it be someone that is directly effected by the decision or someone with no personal repercussion from the decision?
I assert that someone without repercussions would be easily swayed by things like financial gain or individual ideology over what is actually best for the individual in question when compared to someone with a little skin in the game. For that not to be true would require a person on par with say Jesus and I would say that anyone claiming to be so should just fix the situation with their magic powers or be viewed as of questionable honesty.
So. Hopeless situations do exist. The only person that really knows what someone is experiencing is that person. The best person to make a decision on what to do about those experiences is the one most effected by the decision.
Therefore, should an individual decide they are in a hopeless situation they should be allowed to decide how they want to address it.
I know that people will say they don’t see it as a hopeless situation…. that is fine but it isn’t your situation, it’s theirs.
I know people will say that they disagree with the persons decision about how to deal with it… that is fine but it isn’t you that has the most repercussions from the decision, it is them.
I know people will say they don’t like that the person is going to die…. that is fine but death is unavoidable for both of you.
The only real difference is in the timing and the duration of suffering.
That is my logical argument for not forcing another human being to suffer when they don’t want to. Aka, suicide should be legal. Although I do prefer euthanasia for humanitarian reasons.
Chad, loved your post and it really is that simple. There shouldn’t even be a debate about this truth be told.
I’m am adult and my life has been hell for 95% of it or more and has only gotten worse over the years and will continue to deteriorate. I want out and I want out NOW!
How dare anyone be in a position to tell me that I can’t do this in a safe an effective manner instead of having to find questionable ways of doing it that may or may not end up badly.
We will never be a civilized society until this gets fixed and it needs to be done now. Enough with the discussions and lollygagging (always wanted to use that word).
I don’t care what anyone’s opinion is because they don’t matter. Sorry but that’s the truth. If you don’t like it then too bad.
And for anyone who dares to say there is always hope or some such crap then they have zero clue on just how horrific life can be for some people.
If you detect some anger in my tone then you’d be right. Especially here in Canada where the Supreme Court stated how they were to proceed which was perfect. Of course the law wasn’t implemented in the same way and now there are too many restrictions and for those that do qualify, they still run the risk of being denied.
This is cruel and unusual punishment and why more people aren’t disgusted by what’s happened is beyond what I can comprehend.
Well said Nodscene. It angers me when people say there is always hope. It is simply a false statement that dismisses the serious despair that many people contemplating suicide find themselves in. Yes for some there is hope and all situations are different, but the reality is once someone is down in life and all odds are stacked against them, change doesn’t happen and hope brings nothing but even greater intolerable pain and despair. I personally would rather end my life than live on nothing but suffering and false hope, full of disappointments and regrets. If someone has no quality of life due to sickness, poverty etc why must they be inflicted with guilt and forced to stay alive just because of society’s expectations of what is right and wrong. It is like some form of cruel punishment by society that would not even be inflicted on a beloved pet.
Very logical response. Thank you! If only all the various suicide situations were that simple. Unfortunately, the person going through the suffering isn’t always the person who knows best what decision to make. Maybe never, but I doubt that, because logically it makes sense that person knows their own situation best. But that isn’t necessarily true. For example children who decide they don’t like a food before they even try it, being made to try it, only to find out they really LOVE that food. And why? Because the adult knew things about the child that the child didn’t know himself – if anything simply based on their own past experience with being a child. I don’t think any of us completely grow up – I’m 48 and I haven’t anyway (& I’ve taken a lot of advice from children even at my age, because sometimes they know better than me). Regardless, there’s a scientific model that
1) there’s things about an individual that neither the individual or others know
2) there’s things an individual knows about himself that others don’t know
3) there’s things others know about an individual that the individual doesn’t know
4) & there’s things about an individual that others and the individual both know about the individual
Putting those categories into 4 quadrants, the more you know about yourself that others don’t know about you, the smaller the area that others know about you that you don’t know about yourself, etc.
I think that equates into, the higher your intrapersonal & interpersonal intelligence; the more likely that you are most definitely the best person for deciding whether suicide is the right thing for you to do. Interpersonal intelligence is also so very important because of having really good insight into what others lives are like ought to help put really good solid accurate perspective on things.
I think you do realize that there are suicide situations that seem afterward to starkly point to that if only the person had held out a little longer, life really would have gotten better. Fortunately that’s true for me, my depression wanes and ebbs. And, I realize I most definitely can’t accurately say that’s true for everyone, and it’s most definitely NOT true for everyone. But, we really don’t always know what’s best for ourselves. Think back to the 1st time you had stomach flu (most have had this experience). It gets so bad, you’re scared you’re going to die. Then it gets so bad, you wish you would die. Then it goes away and it’s all better. And, you think wow! But, in reality, there’s different variations on this. Some people really do die. Some get it and aren’t scared and think “oh good, maybe I’ll die” – etc. But my first description is the most common experience most people can relate with.
But, I am one of those people that I realize there’s a good amount of the time that I really don’t know what’s best for myself – and sometimes I’ll try out another person’s hunch, most often finding out the other person was right when I give their opinion a try. But regardless, I’m still the person who has to decide what direction to go – unless someone stops me from doing what I want to. That happens, too, for better and for worse.
Anyway, I don’t think suicide as a whole is a simple thing. But, that likely there’s situations of suicide that KISS most definitely works – whether it be the perspective of the person doing the suicide, or the perspective of others happening to know better for that specific person and stopping it. I do think both situations happen
1) the suicide person knows better
&
2) the people who stopped the suicide person happened to actually know better
I believe that because it’s true for other situations in life. And, and I think all of life situations are a microcosm or macrocosm for all other life situations.
And, then of course there’s happening to do the “right thing” for all the wrong reasons, and dumb luck.
This is kind of my whole point, it can be worked into the system and is essentially why the “system” part is there. It’s to determine whether someone truly has a quality of life that would allow for them to be humanely put down (I used that term deliberately because as least our beloved pets have this option and is practiced extensively).
Come to think of it, why can’t we just use the same system vets use to determine which animals get put down. Sure we will have to modify it a bit but we already have accepted standards on how much suffering and sadness an animal has to be in before they are put to sleep.
It may sound simplistic but that’s always the best place to start. Then add the least amount of safeguards necessary so you can prevent the wrong people (be it patient, family or doctor) from abusing this system.
Most importantly, you need at least 51% of the people making the laws, stipulations, and final decision to be someone who has long term chronic illness (pain and/or mental etc) to have the deciding vote as they are the ones who actually know what they are talking about when it comes to this issue.
No one who hasn’t a clue what long term, life ruining illness (of whatever kind) does to a person just doesn’t have the right qualifications. Simple as that. We don’t have art teachers running advanced calculus classes at our Universities/Colleges for a reason and I’m sure you can figure out why 🙂 Actually if you think about it that would cause way more deaths than this law would….with buildings falling down, planes crashing etc haha.
As it stands in Canada at least, you must be dying in the foreseeable future to qualify for MAID. I believe about 20% or more of patients die before even getting accepted. Around 20%-30% are rejected leaving only approx 50% of the people who apply (and should qualify) able to take advantage of this supposedly compassionate law while denying it to a much wider group of people who arguably need it more. Their suffering (which can be as bad or worse) has no time limit and are forced to suffer for decades upon decades of excruciating pain and zero quality of life (unable to socialize, keep pets or be able to enjoy anything in life at all).
Sorry, but I’d happily take cancer or any disease that will kill me in 6 months or so no matter how bad (at least doctors are understanding and compassionate at that point) the symptoms are. And yes, I’ve helped take care of my mom as she stayed home instead of a hospital while dying of cancer so I know what I’m talking about. She had a way better quality of life than I’ve had up until she was bedridden for the last week or two of her life. That would be a big step up and a relief if I were to “suffer” from the same fate. Sadly I’m not so lucky and neither are a lot of people.
So do you think our current laws are actually all that humane or are they just enacting whatever they could to placate the masses and not actually help the majority of the people who need this service?
@Shiela Bliss There are two types of “know what is best” scenarios, it seems to me. One concerns facts. What kind of fuel is best for my car to get the best mileage or pollute the least? Another concerns value judgments. What kind of life is best (for me) to lead? The latter depends on the individual. Just because most of us might agree on what is “the best life” doesn’t make our agreement a fact. This is the problem with much of the modern social “sciences”–that they draw value conclusions based not on facts but instead feelings and then allude to these feelings-values as if they were objective facts.
Those who argue end of life decision-making ought to remain the prerogative of the individual are right because without showing some objectively correct value judgment (like living life this way is “correct” but living it that way is “incorrect”), there are only opinions and perspectives. The role of the government, and its various authorities, should be to prevent individuals harming other individuals while preserving each individual’s freedom to live–or not–as they see fit.
Modern medicine has finally come to realize that we physicians aren’t entitled to make decisions FOR our patients. We’re merely technicians, experts in health process. Patients are experts in evaluating what is “best” for them. The gold standard of modern medicine is for patients to remain the captains of their healthcare ships. The same ought to apply to end-of-life decision-making, at least for legal adults. Thankfully, more and more medical doctors and other clinicians are coming to this conclusion. We don’t baby adults when they’re signing life-altering contracts, deciding whether or not to use prophylactics during intimacy, or making any number of other potentially catastrophic decisions the rest of us disagree with. That is the essence of personal freedom. You decide what’s best for you and I’ll decide what’s best for me, regardless others’ feelings on the matter.
Aiah – I definitely agree with you that the majority most definitely is NOT always right. Beyond that we do have laws that are for safety’s sake – even for safety of the individual for the sake of at least making an informed decision. Such as making clear to everyone that huffing is illegal and so it ought to be a no-brainer that it’s dangerous. But something straight out infringing on freedom such as Iowa law that homeopathies are illegal except by like 5 homeopaths hand-picked by the state for the sake of so that people are not poorly spending their money on homeopathy which the state admits is SAFE to use (https://medicalboard.iowa.gov/policy-statement-homeopathy) – those kinds of laws really infringe on freedom. As the article says, “Consider that 90% of people who survive a suicide attempt do not go on to die by suicide.” Obviously it seems that perhaps 90% of the people who were successful may have changed their mind had they not succeeded. That 90% are going on feelings instead of facts. And, facts according to the article are:
1) “His experience is one of many (including my own story) that illustrates that the wish to die is fluid.”
2) “It comes and goes to varying degrees.”
3) “A great many people who are saved from suicide are thankful, sooner or later, to be alive.”
That 90% is a HUGE percentage to consider to not make it illegal for the sake of saving the 90% who are NOT making informed decisions. If the drunk drivers statistic MAGICALLY happened to be that they never ended up killing another person, but always only themselves, would it be ok to let them drive because they THINK they are making an informed decision when they most certainly are NOT due to their scientifically verified impaired judgment? No, it would not be ethical to let them drive. I’m not saying all suicides are done under impaired judgement. Maybe they are, but I doubt it. I am saying that it’s looking like 90% are done under impaired judgement. Of course that number may not be accurate in comparison to the successful suicides because perhaps a high percentage of successful suicides are done by people who definitely NEVER would have quit or changed their mind. But, consider in the article that suicide prevention advocate Kevin Hines chose a way that looked like a higher success rate than shooting oneself through the head, and changed his mind AFTER the deed was in progress, somehow survived, and became a part of the 90% statistic who NEVER die by suicide (considering that he’s seemed to make clear he won’t attempt suicide again). As a society, we really do things for each other in attempt to protect each other from being stupid. For instance, even credit cards are held within bounds of helping people make informed decisions. But, suicide is far more comparable to having laws against huffing, etc – not as comparable to people making catastrophic decisions that actually often there is legal means for against the scammer – but not always. Regardless, suicide is not a good comparison with that. Unfortunately, it’s not so simple as you put it, “You decide what’s best for you and I’ll decide what’s best for me, regardless others’ feelings on the matter” because as you’ve described, it’s important to go by facts and not feelings. And, stats are showing that suicide people are going by their feelings over facts. I doubt all suicide people are going by their feelings over facts, but it’s looking like 90% are doing it.
@Shiela Bliss
I can’t find a way to reply to your last comment to me so I’m replying to your original comment, Shiela. Thanks for the chance to dialog.
I’m just concerning laws proscribing suicide. Other laws, citizens will have to consider for themselves whether they want the laws or not. History is full of absurd, abusive laws. My contention is against the assumption that life MUST have value. No scientist, physician, or philosopher has ever offered any objective evidence that any value lies outside people’s minds, let alone that life has “value.” That’s not a trivial statement. If we cannot demonstrate rigorously that life has value, then we can’t say someone is “crazy” because they feel about life differently than the rest of us do. I might be crazy because I believe helium is a heavier gas than air at normal conditions. You can prove to me I’m wrong and therefore you have a reason to prohibit me from acting on my wrong belief (assuming it affects others, like engineering a product). The same can’t be said for a belief about life having/not having value. So controlling people as they seek to manage their own lives, not others’ lives, on this matter amounts to trying to control others’ minds and private actions. Sadly, humanity doesn’t seem to have learned how heinous this is even after millennia of crimes the attempt to control others’ private feelings and beliefs has enabled.
As for the article’s statistic about the percent of people who attempt suicide not going on to die from suicide, the inferential flaw in the argument should be obvious. Unless you can follow all your patients until their deaths, you can’t accurately assert what percent didn’t die from suicide, especially since as in many other medical studies many subjects will likely be lost to distant follow up. Moreover, not committing suicide is not at all the same as being content being alive. There are outstanding patient interviews of those suffering from suicidal ideation over the long term (5, 10+ years) that bear this out, not to mention very many of the published public comments on sites like this one. There may be even more evidence sites won’t publish for legal liability reasons. Also, there are likely evolutionary reasons inhibiting suicide. This doesn’t argue that choosing not to commit suicide means one is remotely content with one’s life or that one is “better off.” More, just because the overwhelming majority of us subscribe to an ideology (religion…) or identity (gender…) does’t justify prohibiting alternative ideologies or identities.
With respect, I reject the assertion that the article (above) provides “facts.” It presents the worldview of a professional–albeit a common one. I mean no disregard to Stacey, but merely mentioning a statistic does not prove an argument. Yes, it is as simple as you decide what’s best for you and I’ll decide what’s best for me where our private bodies and our values are concerned. That is, again, what freedom is largely about–in the personal realm. And there’s little that’s more personal than an individual’s assessment of life value. Of course, if someone feels that religious or psychological … counseling and the tools these provide for life management are beneficial to them, it’s great they have something they find helpful. But it’s quite another matter to impose values and worldviews on others as legal mandates over what others are free to do with our own bodies where there is no one else is in imminent danger. That is a return to a proto-religious state in which people had better act and think as others see fit or else.
When the clinical world finally provides hard biomedical proof that neurological disease causes “mental illness” and when the scientific world determines that certain values are objectively true (like the value that life is good), then there’ll be good reason to reconsider my perspective. Until then, I see no good reason that an individual must believe, reason, and act (on his or her own body only) in ways anyone else believes to be right.
Hi Aiah – Thank you also for the chance to dialog. I still believe suicide is not as simple as,you put as “… you decide what’s best for you and I’ll decide what’s best for me where our private bodies and our values are concerned.” And, it does do harm to other people via suicide contagion. While suicide contagion is called a phenomenon, and whether it exists is controversial; it seems pretty obvious to me that it’s as simple as “monkey see, monkey do.” Wisdom of people pre-television came up with that one. And, some people are more prone to this “phenomenon” than others. My kid can’t do violent video games – not even boxing on Wii Fit – because he WILL copy them. To me, suicide contagion is a no-brainer to be true.
Sorry I think I got off track a bit. The hugest reason I think suicide isn’t as simple as you describe is that people deserve to make informed decisions when making life changing decisions such as suicide is really life changing. A close 2nd reason I have is that people deserve to make life changing decisions when their judgement isn’t impaired. Regardless of actual percentage that this is a problem for suicidal people (it’s higher than 0%, that much is obvious) I really think informed decisions and unimpaired judgement are crucial. And, people deserve to be stopped when they don’t realize they are being stupid. Of course “deserve” doesn’t mean they are going to get it – but it does mean it’s not a bad thing for a person to be stopped when truly they are doing something they would otherwise realize is stupid. And I hope we both understand that you don’t have to be a rocket scientist to recognize stupid. For the person being stupid – in general it’s the hindsight that’s 20-20. And, onlookers often recognize it for what it is (it’s stupid, and I’m talking about anything stupid) with 20-20 foresight. I appreciate being stopped from doing something stupid. “Do unto others as you would want done unto you” is an adage that really does seem to work in general – unless you hate yourself, and therefore want to do mean things to yourself – then it’s not so cool to do that to others. Then at least pretending “if Jesus were real” works past that problem with “Love others as I have loved you” as long as you are not messing around with trying to purposely interpret that into some sort of unloving way.
I’ll try KISS with that – keep it so simple. While seeing the clinical world finally provide hard biomedical proof that neurological disease causes “mental illness” – might be impressive; I think simply combating stupid is more effective and easier to understand. Mental illness or not, stupid is harmful stuff and it happens to everyone. Again, that’s why I think people actually making informed decisions under conditions in which their judgement isn’t impaired is the very best way to combat stupid, and it’s being ethical with people. It really isn’t ethical to let people willy nilly go around committing suicide – it’s ethical to care that people make informed decisions while judgement is unimpaired.
Value of life … Yeah, I went to some infinitely smart person to figure that one out. “God loves me, and He most definitely has a good reason for it or He wouldn’t love me. And, it doesn’t matter what that reason is because I know He is right, and I’m not one in comparison to Him to argue otherwise.”
That’s got to sound really lame to non-Christians, or religions with a God that’s not loving like the one I described. But, there is a way that likely makes sense to man, too. Life, if it has no meaning, then no harm in living it out. Sure, no harm in offing yourself, esp. for a seemingly good reason such as suffering – but really for any reason if there is no meaning. But, also no harm in letting yourself suffer – really really really suffer. Since life has no meaning, you aren’t doing yourself any favors by dying either – ending suffering would be as utterly meaningless as the suffering itself.
So then there’s the lame reasoning people sometimes use for believing in God. If God’s real, it’s a good thing to believe in Him. And, if He’s not real, you didn’t do yourself any harm for believing He is real. But, if God is real, and you believe He is not, there could be dire consequences for not believing He’s real – so you’re better off believing God is real – just in case.
As lame as that is it can also be applied to the value of life. If it’s of no value – it doesn’t matter what you do with it. Suffer – don’t suffer – whatever. But, if it DOES have value, it’s of value to treat it as though it’s valuable. So if it does have value, it’s likely better to suffer whatever it is you are going through to wherever it leads to – even if it leads to death that isn’t suicide. So, if life were to have no value, no harm living as though it does have value. But if you live life as though it has no value, and it turns out that it really does – it’s a HUGE truth to miss out on. And, as lame as all that reasoning is, it’s still worth considering – whether life has value or not. Well I suppose not worth considering if life has no value – cuz in that case, nothing is worth considering. In which case, you may as well consider it anyway since it doesn’t matter.
I do know of a person who was going to kill himself, but stuck around to answer the question, “why is the world such a bad place?” (His question was something like that). Over time, that somehow led to him living every day in joy. He now is a Spring Forest Qigong Grandmaster in Minnesota (he was originally from China – and lived through the cultural revolution). That’s what worked for him anyway – for not being suicidal anymore.
@Sheila Bliss
Thanks for being honest in sharing your worldview justifications, Sheila. As it’s apparent now that your justifications for your stance against others’ freedoms to decide about our own private lives are fundamentally values-based, including religious, there doesn’t remain room for further discussion because there is no natural reason people must share the same values, especially in regards to our private lives. For reasons others have already elegantly asserted, I reject the claim that an individual has an obligation to act on their personal life in a way that minimizes others’ emotional discomfort. That assertion is blatantly false in nearly every other aspect of modern culture. Otherwise, we’d prohibit things like no-fault divorce which the majority of US states recognize. Divorce, by the way, researchers find to be among the top three determinants of worsening mental health.
I respect your prerogative to feel about life what you do and if religion provides you meaning and peace, I’m sincerely happy for you. As we are not a country the legal policies of which are, at least ostensibly, based on religion, it’s justifiable as regards policy all 350+ million US citizens are legally bound by the expectation citizens have that policy be based on hard, reproducible, empirically sound, objective science. Your response and others like it, while I respect again the content is meaningful to you, doesn’t answer the questions of (1) the biological causation (not association) of mental states some therapists call “illness” as medical and legal justification for prohibiting people suffering from these assumed illnesses from acting on their own bodies, and (2) the objective evidence that value in general, and life value in particular, are real things outside human beliefs and values such that everyone on the planet ought to be intellectually obliged to respect claims about life value (that it is good/better to be alive). Without answering these questions, there remains no necessary reason any adult who concludes they don’t want to be alive MUST be forced to stay alive.
I respect you don’t feel suicide is as simple as that. That’s your prerogative. The real question, though, is whether the reasons for this belief are sufficiently rigorous that the rest of us should feel the same. Respectfully, I don’t think the reasons are remotely rigorous enough and, as people keep demonstrating more and more year after year, many of us don’t feel the same.
I’ll leave off here as, without addressing my two questions above, at least, there’s little point in continuing. Best wishes to you.
Aiah – Thank you for trying to understand what I was trying to explain. Sorry you didn’t get it.
You said, “As it’s apparent now that your justifications for your stance against others’ freedoms to decide about our own private lives are fundamentally values-based, including religious, there doesn’t remain room for further discussion because there is no natural reason people must share the same values, especially in regards to our private lives.”
I disagree that just because decisions people make in life are fundamentally values-based, including religious; that somehow means people must share the same values, especially in regards to our private lives. That doesn’t make sense to me, and I disagree that it’s true. People’s religious beliefs and values vary greatly. But, I’m all for informed decisions and unimpaired judgement. That’s what matters – and is there any person who does not want to make informed decisions for themselves when their judgement isn’t impaired? I guess it’s not unimaginable.
I did answer your questions about the value of life. It’s not a hard thing.
I’m seeing what you are looking for is that policy, “… be based on hard, reproducible, empirically sound, objective science.”
I can respect your value in that, but it’s not something that impresses me. I value starting somewhere, and improving as I go – like how the Japanese came out with eventually fantastic cars.
Also, I’m more impressed by intuition than analysis. Based on the science of intuition, analysis never catches the whole of what’s real.
I see you said, “Without answering these questions, there remains no necessary reason any adult who concludes they don’t want to be alive MUST be forced to stay alive.”
Why are you saying “adult”? What difference does it make what age you are?
You also said, “I respect you don’t feel suicide is as simple as that. That’s your prerogative. The real question, though, is whether the reasons for this belief are sufficiently rigorous that the rest of us should feel the same. Respectfully, I don’t think the reasons are remotely rigorous enough and, as people keep demonstrating more and more year after year, many of us don’t feel the same.”
Um, actually yes my statement that suicide isn’t as simple as you described as, “You decide what’s best for you and I’ll decide what’s best for me, regardless others’ feelings on the matter” is sufficiently backed by reasons abundantly rigorous enough; certainly in comparison to the evidence you presented to the contrary that, “as people keep demonstrating more and more year after year, many of us don’t feel the same.”
Since you made the criteria for being rigorous enough to be feelings, all I need to find is abundantly rigorous evidence that SOMEBODY who’s been through suicide situation feels that it’s NOT as simple as, “You decide what’s best for you and I’ll decide what’s best for me, regardless others’ feelings on the matter.” Just one person, and I’ve proved it’s not as simple as that. Of course that doesn’t mean that NOBODY has it as simple as that. But, all I’m showing beyond the shadow of a doubt, is based on the undeniable rigorous reason, that it’s not as simple as that for everyone; is one or more people who’ve personally done the suicide situation to feel that it’s not as simple as that.
1) Me
2) The author of the article
And here’s an obvious. You’ve not got it figured out whether life has value or not. That in and of by itself complicates things to be that your statement, “You decide what’s best for you and I’ll decide what’s best for me, regardless others’ feelings on the matter” is not an accurate reflection that suicide is as simple as that for ANYONE let alone EVERYONE.
But, I am of the belief that it is as simple as that for some. Again, my core issues being that the person is of unimpaired judgement and making an informed decision.
How do you feel about all the people who thank other people from stopping them from successfully committing suicide? Are they proof it’s not as simple as that, or are they all lying about being grateful? Or, did they not deserve to be saved?
Yes, that’s enough for the rest of you to realize, it’s not as simple as “You decide what’s best for you and I’ll decide what’s best for me, regardless others’ feelings on the matter.” But, that is NOT enough say it’s NEVER as simple as that. It’s enough to say it’s not as simple as that for one or more.
Sheila,
You make excellent points, and you are one of the few readers of this site who takes the time to advocate for suicide prevention. I thank you for sharing your views, especially since it entails opening yourself up to criticism from others. You’ve helped me to feel a little less lonely here. 🙂
That said, many people who advocate for non-intervention with suicidal people also make good points. As I describe in another post, they have stretched my thinking.
I do struggle with the government’s ability to deprive someone of their civil rights for the person’s own protection, especially since this protection a) isn’t always effective (some people die by suicide in psychiatric hospitals), b) can deter people from ever seeking help again, c) can lead to hospitalization-related PTSD, and d) can result in the person being billed tens of thousands of dollars for a service they might have abhorred.
BUT where I struggle most is with the situation you describe: a person who clearly is not in their “right” state of mind and is grateful, when they are themselves again, to have been protected. For example, if somebody is delirious with 105-degree fever, or overcome with profound and sudden grief, or high on meth, or hearing command hallucinations telling them they will be punished if they don’t act on their suicidal thoughts, then doesn’t that person deserve care? Are people who love that person supposed to just sit by and watch as the person acts to end their life? That not only hurts the suicidal person. It also hurts the bystanders.
Obviously, there’s a great deal of variation on the spectrum of suicidality and connection to reality. I don’t know of a solution that will please everyone. I just know that if someone who would otherwise want to live is on the verge of dying because of delirium, intoxication, or other forces, then I want others to have the ability to help protect them.
Stacey, I’m sorry but this is the kind of reply that I find rediculous. I really hate to say it so bluntly but do you truly believe that when we have a system in place where euthanasia is available to everyone (especially mental illness) that they would allow such a person in your example to actually be approved? That you can just walk in like a fast food place and end your life no questions asked? Seriously?!?
I’m sorry but it’s this kind of “thinking” that is really upsetting and frankly terribly misleading on how the process would actually function. Do you truly believe that once we have a system in place like those in the Nordic countries that you could just walk in and be euthanized without any checks and balances in place?
It blows my mind that people actually think it’s going to be that easy where anyone under any circumstance can just get this done and no one will ask any questions or make sure that a person actually has a good reason to end their life.
If I can ask you and/or anyone else who is opposed to this because they are afraid that we are going to be killing people just because they ask for it to put some real consideration into how this will actually play out.
There will be an in depth and peer reviewed system to prevent exactly what you are so concerned about. How can people not believe that this will be how things will work? It just blows my mind how someone can actually come to this conclusion. You are playing on people’s fears plain and simple.
I’m really trying to keep this as civil as possible but I’m having a really hard time to be honest. I’m hearing people on here who really aren’t using any logic whatsoever and worst of all, have the audacity to think that they magically know what’s best for someone who is suffering more than that person themselves. It’s kind of frightening.
Now I’m all for certain restrictions, especially for specific mental illnesses and moreso when it comes to age.
In some of these circumstances there should be a minimum requirement (depending on the situation I’d seriously consider a minimum of 2-5 years of treatment before being able to even apply) in regards to seeing a mental health professional and using medications to give them the best chance at improving their life.
I truly thought this would be obvious to anyone who spent 5 minutes considering how this would be implemented. But maybe they have and there is an alterior motive to what they are saying. Like trying to push their ideology/religious beliefs but wanting to hide that fact. Who knows and frankly it doesn’t matter. This isn’t about you but the person suffering and what’s best for them.
I truly beg everyone to think about what was their worst day they ever had both physically and/or mentally…then multiply that by 2 (at least) and then have that be every second of every day of your life. And no, even sleep doesn’t provide a true escape. You dream about pain, you wake up in pain (even after only a few hours after falling asleep)…this is true hell and there is no possible way you can even begin to understand.
Anyone with an ounce of empathy should be appalled with the state things are in right now. And I don’t understand why people aren’t, and worst of all why people are against it.
Sometimes I wish I could have someone feel what it’s like for a day, or even week but even then you can’t grasp the toll it takes as the months and years pass by. It truly saddens me that this is even being debated. This needs to be a law right now…simple as that. Just don’t forget that there will be safeguards in place to ensure that it will only be for people that truly require this compassionate act. Because this is precisely what it’s meant to be… compassionate.
Nodscene,
We are talking about different things.
You are talking about euthanasia, which is not suicide. Euthanasia is where somebody else ends the person’s life. Perhaps you also are referring to assisted suicide, where people can legally obtain a lethal dose of medication for the purpose of ending their life. Can you point out where, in the comments thread to which I was responding, anybody spelled out the system you describe in your comment? I don’t recall that being described, but I might have missed it.
In any case, my comments pertain to the argument that there shouldn’t be intervention (especially involuntary hospitalization), when somebody is suicidal. That is where I struggle. I see many grave injustices that occur with involuntary hospitalization and other interventions to stop somebody from dying by suicide. I do not resort to involuntary hospitalization with clients unless the person is clearly at imminent risk for suicide (which is to say, only a couple times in 20+ years of practice). Yet, as I said earlier, I also want recourse to be available for people who are in an acute, intense state of suicide risk and who would want protection if they were in a better state of mind. (Note that I’m not saying everybody would want protection.)
The systems of euthanasia you’re referring to above, as well as physician-assisted suicide, are another matter entirely for me. I have made clear in other posts on this site that I support the right to physician-assisted suicide in cases of terminal illness. Though there are compelling arguments for permitting other types of assisted suicide, I can’t bring myself to support other cases of assisted suicide. That would require my believing that somebody’s situation is hopeless, and I am not omniscient. I cannot know that somebody’s situation is hopeless.
I can’t know that someone’s situation isn’t hopeless, either. But if I’m going to be wrong, I’d rather err on the side of hope.
I’m honestly shocked and saddened by your comments. And frankly it’s easy for you to say you don’t believe in doctor assisted death unless the person is terminally ill when you have no clue what kind of suffering people go through on a day by day basis. I can guarantee you that if you were in my position (and so many others who are worse of than I) you would change your mind in a heartbeat. I urge you to visit some chronic pain forums and see just how bad some people’s lives are.
You can deny it all you want but you honestly don’t have a clue as to what true suffering people are going through. And until you’ve experienced the constant, life altering pain, lack of sleep, lonelyness, anger, isolation and lack of anything that can even remotely be construed as quality of life then I don’t feel you are qualified to be so firm on your position.
Do you have any idea what it’s like to lose everything including friends, not being able to eat anything other than microwaved meals (with paper plates and plastic utensils) because cooking or even washing a couple dishes can cause excruciating pain. Not even being able to take care of a pet to have any sort of companionship, love or affection in your life.
I pray for cancer every day (and I’m an atheist) or some other disease that will kill me sooner rather than later (at least I’d qualify for doctor assisted death). But in all honesty that doesn’t matter because I like so many others have to take matters into my own hands (at the risk of failing with unintended consequences that can make things even worse).
I think this will be my last post as there is obviously no point in trying to explain further as people like you think hope is going to be some miracle that’s going to change the unchangeable (spinal issues etc etc that can’t be fixed and will only get worse over time). There really is such a thing as not having any hope for things to get better even if you don’t have a life threatening illness.
I’ve always given people the benefit of the doubt and even though I’ve been let down way more than otherwise, I still let each person prove what kind of person they are from their own actions (or inactions as the case may be). Now I can see what kind of human you are.
You deal professionally with people who have mental illnesses and for the most part they can get better. But that is only a small percentage of people who truly need their misery to end. If you truly can’t see how necessary this is for certain people then there are no words that I can write that will change your mind.
Just know that it’s people like you who are directly contributing to the unbearable suffering of people where in any form of a compassionate society, this would not only have been implemented ages ago but anyone who would willfully force these people to stay alive would be considered inhumane at best.
I know these are strong words and I’d be surprised if you actually allowed this but these are beyond dire circumstances for us and all we get in return is disbelief, treated as drug seekers, turned in parish’s to the point where doctors are actively refusing to take any patients with any sort of pain issues. As an example, I have to drive 8hrs every 2 months to see my doctor who I’ve had for 15 years because there is not a single doctor in my city who will take me as a patient even though I have legitimate chronic pain (amongst other health issues). And no, you cannot imagine how “fun” of a ride that is for me.
I completely understand your point when it comes to mental illness. As for any comments about the so called “system” and where it’s been described…well that’s my whole point. People are jumping to conclusions and making up ludicrous scenarios as some sort of proof that if we were to allow doctor assisted death then anyone with a short term mental breakdown and is highly suicidal will be allowed to die if we were to implement the law which allows for non-life threatening illnesses. There are plenty of these being brought up by people as examples of why this shouldn’t be allowed when honestly they make no sense and would never make it through whatever system would be put in place.
I’ll also admit that I have interchanged terms where I should have been more specific in reference to doctor assisted suicide. Sorry but my brain has a hard time writing down exactly what I wish to say but I figured it would be obvious to anyone reading what I’m saying. I honestly think you are pointing out these inconsistencies as a distraction from the main point of what I’m saying or trying to undermine what I’ve written…and you’ve done a great job everytime you’ve replied to me. Very clever.
You also don’t need to be omniscient to know when a person’s situation is hopeless when it comes to matters outside of the mental health realm. Saying otherwise is a pure cop-out… especially of someone with your education. Anyone can see through that and it’s a bit rediculous stating as much don’t you think? Can you really not think of any scenario where doctors can’t help someone with intractable pain due to injuries, deformation, degeneration etc?
Ask yourself, is this really the kind of society you want? I’ll say one thing, you can tell a lot about humans by how they treat the sickest and most vulnerable amongst us. And from where I’m standing it’s truly a disgusting sight.
As a final word I do have to give you a lot of credit for having this topic open for people to discuss and even moreso that you reopened the comments after you turned them off for a time. I can understand how that must have been a very difficult decision to make and I’m happy you made the right choice. Obviously everyone will have their own opinion and they will range from one end of the spectrum to the other. But at least there is a place for discussion and that is truly important.
Take care,
David W.
@Sheila
Just to be clear, it is my position, and I believe it’s a logically defensible one, that if someone claims that suicide is never justifiable or that there is no such thing as rational suicide–and this without hard evidence to corroborate that claim–then, yes, expecting everyone to subscribe to the suicide-is-always-wrong belief equates to expecting others to hold the same value, namely that human life is so precious the owner of a life cannot rationally decide to discard it. Without corroborating objective evidence, this is a value/belief and one the prevailing clinical and popular sentiments expect everyone else to subscribe to.
Respectfully, neither you nor anyone else has answered my question about objective life value. What others have offered is their beliefs, not objective arguments. Yes, I do personally value policy that’s based on hard, objective evidence as justification for prohibiting personal freedom. I don’t relish being told I can’t make personal choices because of others’ values and feelings. But I’m willing to circumscribe my personal freedoms when rigorous evidence can be provided that certain of my free choices would be immediately harmful to others.
I’m not trying to “impress” anyone. I’m asking for objective evidence that value exists outside feelings and beliefs. No one has ever provided anything remotely akin to such evidence despite their assumptions that life value exists. In how I manage my private life, I ought to be free to ignore others’ beliefs until such time as there is good evidence to support their beliefs as factual.
I respect that intuition impresses you. I recognize that, part of humanity’s evolutionary heritage, what we call intuition has helped us make sense of the world. But many psychology publications show that what we call intuition is very often biased according to cognitive errors our species is inclined to make–like our tendency to assume things we feel strongly about are more prevalent than they in fact are.
I respectfully reject the broad, liberal ascription of “science of intuition” to the work of psychologists like UNSW’s Joel Pearson. Regarding the claim that “analysis never catches the whole of what’s real,” this is a general truism. None of us ever “catches the whole of what’s real.” But some have better demonstrable claims to “what’s real.” Moreover, the lack of certainty about “what’s real” doesn’t justify unilaterally prohibiting personal autonomy.
I used the word “adult” because in this context the word “individual,” minors inclusive, tends to elicit a knee-jerk and violent dismissal or even calls for censorship of an entire argument.
As for, “Um, actually yes my statement that suicide isn’t as simple as you described as, ‘You decide what’s best for you and I’ll decide what’s best for me, regardless others’ feelings on the matter’ is sufficiently backed by reasons abundantly rigorous enough…” I have never argued suicide is simple for “everyone” or that the decisions surrounding suicide are generally simple. I am arguing that as far as my body and personal thoughts and private life are concerned, my self ownership is paramount. I do not recognize anyone else as having a greater claim to my body or my mind than I do such that the other is entitled to coerce me to act as I do not wish in my private life. And I am confident that I am lucid enough to make this kind of decision for myself. I also believe this is true of at least some others.
As for what is “obvious,” I don’t think it is meaningful to assert that someone hasn’t (yet) gotten it figured out if life has value or not any more than it is that someone hasn’t yet figured out if god(s) exist(s) or not. The lack of certainty about things many believe in but haven’t provided objective evidence of doesn’t oblige others to act as if these thing were factually true or even may be true. There is no good evidence to me that life value exists. But there is tremendous evidence, despite the common attestations about life value, from prevalent human behavior that what we value and how we value things are dependent on individual and cultural disposition as well as biology we share with many other species.
I agree with this: “But, I am of the belief that it is as simple as that for some. Again, my core issues being that the person is of unimpaired judgement and making an informed decision.”
I have never read among the comments here or on other forums like this one a serious argument that every suicidal person should be provided means to end their life. As @Nodscene (May 20, 2019) recently above me expressed, the strong argument is that suicide can indeed be a rational choice. The contention lies with the claim that suicide can never be a rational choice and the assertion that everyone who is suicidal is “mentally ill” and, therefore, should be restrained and treated against their will.
Sadly, I am in full agreement with Nodscene’s last reply in this chain of comments. There is no doubt in my mind that Dr. Freedenthal has good intentions in mind. Unfortunately, this is one of those cases that bring to mind the saying “God save us from people who mean well” and similar adages.
Chad, I agree with you. Because, otherwise, one’s argument for forcing other adults to act the way one wants amounts to coercion based ultimately on feelings (personal, cultural…) woefully inconsistent with other cultural values like personal responsibility and freedom. It’s very telling, for example, that we don’t intervene when people are making poor financial decisions or signing contracts that are very likely to hurt them gravely.
Chad,
Thanks for sharing your views. Your impression that the page has changed is likely a reflection of a change in stance that I described in my post, In Defense of Suicide Prevention.
As I state in that post, my aim in starting this website was not to provide a forum to people who present suicide as a solution, or who oppose intervention with imminently suicidal individuals, or who advocate for providing lethal means to individuals who want to die by suicide, or who otherwise oppose suicide prevention.
Unfortunately, many comments submitted here do at least one of the above. So I’m being more judicious about the comments I approve. The site’s Comments Policy describes comments that won’t be published here. Those guidelines are subject to change.
I do want to clarify something. You said suicide “should be legal.” Suicide is legal in the U.S. and in almost all other countries. Except for some obscure, very rarely enforced laws in the U.S., suicide attempts are legal, too. What’s not legal, in most states, is assisted suicide.
I’m sorry if the site no longer helps you. Perhaps the Chronic Suicide Support Forum would be a good site to try, or one of the Reddit forums on suicide.
“As I state in that post, my aim in starting this website was not to provide a forum to people who present suicide as a solution, or who oppose intervention with imminently suicidal individuals, or who advocate for providing lethal means to individuals who want to die by suicide, or who otherwise oppose suicide prevention.”
But such comments are the norm here. So i’m not really sure i follow what you’re saying here.
I will say though, it would be preferrable to keep such comments around as they provide alternative viewpoints. The only types of comments i see being problematic are those that FORCE others into suicide, rather than merely talk about it as a potential solution.
Most people think that as long as you are still breathing and not dead everything is great no matter what your current circumstances are and must be greatful that you are still alive. The belief in pro life is pretty high for live adults, I suppose lol.
When people try to prevent suicide it is really about them and how they feel about the person dying and not about the person committing suicide. This also activates the hero / savior complex in some people and they gain personal satisfaction from saving the person. So the person has been saved so now what?? Misery is just prolonged. Many people have practical reasons for wanting to end their life other than depression / mental illness. There is heaven and hell right on this earth, mainly hell which is worse than suicide. There is nothing worse than living like the walking dead.
I wish right to life extended to people who are not terminally (physically ill).
I agree. People don’t get that just because our not terminal (physical issue) that things will ‘eventually get better’.. NO… sometimes it don’t. IT IS WRONG to lock someone up for them trying to kill themselves. SOMETIMES IT ISN’T a cry for help. Sometimes they don’t have the ‘Painless ability’ to do it and they have to resort to other means, and sometimes it don’t work.
I think, just like the abortion rights group, who by the way have a differing opinion on suicide ironically as that is, MY BODY, MY CHOICE…. NO ONE has ANY right to tell me if my life is worth living or not. IF i know it isn’t… I have the choice…. and there should be something set up to ‘help’ people in a more humane way then what probably will happen with people like me and driving their motorcycle or car in a cement brick bridge. Or others that try to OD, but due to the pills they get sick. Etc. and NO …. WE ARE ALL NOT MENTALLY ILL!!! i can’t stand people say that ‘well if that person wants to actually die, we need to do something because they are not thinking properly. Now i am not naive to think there are some who aren’t…. but guess what… it is their choice still. How many girls/woman who have had an abortion wish they didn’t. but we don’t stop all of them… even though the percentage is high that wished they didn’t. it affected the rest of their life….. Anyway… MY BODY MY CHOICE!..
I have been reading your articles for the last couple of days. I enjoy how you write, your experience, and your perspective. I do like the revised title you gave this article. I was surprised when I read the comments below, but I stopped to take a moment to understand many are searching frantically in pain for themselves or loved ones. In this desperation the mind is in a different state. Outside of that mind set, I enjoyed your article. Stats, logic and straight forward reasoning can be understandable to me. In the midst of my mind being clouded by past abuse, trauma, and suicidal thoughts, I found it comforting to read this article because of the lack of drama and fluff. I found it comforting. So, at the end of all of that, Thank you.
Tara,
Thank you for your comment.It’s wonderful to hear that the article was helpful to you!
(Apologies for my delay in responding.)
hi my brother went to his gp and told him that he tried to commit suicide the week before but it didn’t work he told the gp he was still wanting to die the doctor sent him away and told him it would pass in a couple of days well a couple of days later he hanged himself this was 2 weeks ago I blame the gp the gp should have listened u could tell by looking at him there was something wrong with him