“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
This probably won’t get published, but here it goes. I want to commit suicide. I have felt this urgent need for over 2 years. Every minute of every day. Therapy and meds and zapping hasn’t changed this. My circumstances are personal, but suffice to say, I have access to the best therapy available. My physical needs are met. I have a loving family. Due to my reasons, I want to go. I don’t appreciate comments about being irrational, or “oh” it’s my distorted thinking – let’s just keep trying to help him change that. Not interested folks. There are (obviously) others like me. Please show us some respect and empathy for the way we feel. I am all for suicide prevention, but not to the extent of perpetuating one’s suffering because you are convinced they’ll “see the light”. Some of us just need to check out. It’s tragic, but it’s true. Please provide us with a peaceful exit. I don’t want a brutal, lonely exit, that traumatizes everyone I love.
Thank you.
I understand you Gus. I had a troubled upbringing. I had parents who I believe had no right bringing kids into this world. They are lazy and emotionally unstable, in my opinion. I’ve tried numerous times in the past, as young as 8yrs old to end my life. I’ve always turned to pills, drinking toxic stuff and eventually started cutting myself. I’m older now and have lives that depend on me, animals that are my kids and a husband. The thought of killing myself is always present. I always say when or if they go before me, I will immediately let go of this life. I hold on to my Faith, that may not be your thing, but it’s the one thing that gives me strength to keep holding on.
My involvement in this conversation has admittedly all but ended when I felt it quit being a search for truth and turned more into a bully pulpit. With that said, I am contributing again in hopes of adding some content that I believe might be of use to someone in pain and wanting help.
To that end I wish to pose a question based on my own situation. I have been hoping for a heart attack or similar since 2015. This entire time I would be open to attempting diagnosis and treatment but do not wish to give up my rights or be discriminated against for doing so as that was my experience from a previous attempt here in the USA. I tried looking for anonymous options in the states but the best I found was some hotlines, apps and forums. So I wanted to see if anyone on here had experience with mental health services in countries other than the USA and if so what they were?
To start off the list, I have been primarily considering Belgium but even before the pandemic I was having difficulty finding work there to facilitate relocation. I like this option as I feel they have the greatest protections for the patients autonomy since their euthanasia program covers many with mental illness as well and their diagnostic/treatment options look to be diverse. If there are others with such options and rights protections that I am comfortable with I would like to try expanding my search.
Do you believe there’s always a way to get to being okay with life?
I see suicide as one such way. That is why I advocate for its adoption as an option. The simple fact that there is a potential way out may help some feel less trapped. This can be enough in itself to help some feel better and if it isn’t enough then they can go though with it to find peace.
Chad, thanks for your contributions. And bravo to you for even exerting the energy to engage others who presume to tell you how to feel and think about your own life. I don’t engage those kind of people anymore as they often exhibit a kind of religious fanaticism, not satisfied to be entitled to make decisions about their own lives.
You’re absolutely right that for many of us, knowing suicide is a potential way OUT of life’s suffering makes us feel better. And you’re right, again, that, owning ourselves, belonging to no one else, we can choose to go through with it to find peace. The problem, as I’m sure you know, is that others who work to legalize their opinions and values then seek to prevent the rest of us from carrying out our own decisions. So, many end up in even worse positions.
If others want to be entitled to tell those they disagree with how to think, feel, and act, then those others should be financially… responsible for those lives. Of course, they’ll offer excuse after excuse for why this isn’t reasonable. Anyway, just wanted to send you thanks and support.
Maybe try asking yourself, “Does this emotion serve me?” [Be it depression, love, lust, greed, grief, etc] If the answer is “no,” then it’s just an emotion, and it doesn’t mean anything. Every emotion has it’s gift, but if you’ve already honored what that is, and so the emotion no longer serves you; then it no longer means anything if it ever meant anything at all.
With something like love, lust, or greed, etc.; it’s really more than one emotion involved. And, if those emotions aren’t serving you, then they’re just emotions and they don’t mean anything.
I know of someone who suffered thoughts of suicide practically constantly. When the person looked at it from the perspective of, “It’s just an emotion. It doesn’t mean anything” it was a game changer. The person now seldom has a thought of suicide.
I learned this perspective from that person. I’ve been using it for about 2 weeks now for emotions that don’t serve me. It’s working pretty well. Far better than anything else I’ve tried. Sometimes I say it to myself over and over again until the emotion passes. Other times the emotion passes quite quickly. And, using the technique, the emotions that don’t serve me are felt less often.
Ok…. I am glad this is working for you but I do not exactly follow. I mean if the answer to the question of “Does this emotion serve me?” is “yes,” then it’s also just an emotion, and it doesn’t mean anything. The same statement is true either way isn’t it? You seem to just be setting up a sorting mechanism for which perceptions of reality to deny. My understanding is that trying to make someone deny their own perception of reality pretty much the definition of “gaslighting” and a recognized form of mental abuse. Maybe some see a difference resulting from someone trying to do so to themselves but if they are doing so due to pressure from society to be “normal” then I fail to see how such a difference could be justified. I guess I just think that too often such efforts are taken more to appease society than for the benefit of the suicidal individual. The unfortunate consequence being examples of why those with mental illness shouldn’t be allowed to “make rash decisions” that are equally arguably an example of someone being forced to suffer in silence.
Thank you – yes, I’m glad it works for me, too. I was skeptical, but I tried it, and have been impressed with how well it works for me. It’s not meant at all to question a person’s sanity – not gaslighting. For me, it’s like getting some control over what I feel. Actually feeling like I have some choice in how I feel. Yes, the emotions I deem as serving me are also just emotions, but I choose to believe that they mean something – because psychologically they do mean something to me in a positive way. For me, experiencing grief has always been a positive thing that takes some time for it not to hurt as much. For me grief reminds that I care, and caring is meaningful to me. But, if I felt like it was going longer than I think healthy, I would now try looking at it as just an emotion that doesn’t mean anything. To me it sounds a lot like stuffing emotions instead of feeling them. But, instead it really does seem to work for processing the emotions I don’t want in a healthier way – after I’ve honored the emotion, but it’s become intrusive. At that point, I decide it doesn’t mean anything, and it’s worked. Then an emotion settles in that has me feeling ok about what my then current thoughts happen to be. And I decide “This emotion is what I want – it serves me” and I feel good or ok about pondering those thoughts and feeling that emotion. I haven’t tried this process for grief yet, but it really seems to be a game changer for depression. I hope that makes sense. For me it’s not that I want to be viewed as “normal.” For me it’s about feeling ok about being alive – it’s for me, not society.
@Sheila Bliss: By googling “What is gaslighting” and going to pretty much everything but the dictionary definition I found confirmation that gaslighting isn’t limited to questioning sanity, making someone question judgement, perception of reality or memories all qualify. Just trying to explain my perspective on the practice you are espousing. Again, I am very glad it works for you and am only trying to say I see it as a potential slippery slope if depending on the motive of the adopter.
Chad – Thank you for the continued concern about gaslighting. I especially thank you because I haven’t been using this method I’ve described for very long, and maybe any negatives that come with it are yet to come. I guess to question whether any particular personal emotion has actual meaning would be to question one’s natural inclination of how said emotion is personally perceived remembered, or judged. And, I think I understand how that can be gaslighting. I’m hoping it’s not because it’s the person themselves looking to change an unwanted habit that has shown up; & I’m hoping not because gaslighting would cause psychological damage. I’m hoping the method I’m using is allowing me to have control over parts of the software that run me (such as my emotions). I think that’s different than an outsider dabbling into my software trying to have their way. -I hope. But, I think I understand your concern that this could be a form of self-gaslighting is important to continue to consider. On a positive note, I’m not saying that any of my unwanted memories, perceptions, or judgments of my emotions didn’t happen. But, I am telling myself that those unwanted memories, perceptions, or judgments don’t have to mean anything. I’m attempting to pull the foundation out on it all that I deem to be emotions – and train myself to perceive those emotions in ways that serve me. I think it’s a good dodge to medication that does the same thing basically – forcing the body to have or not have certain emotions, etc. And, that’s not called gaslighting. It’s my hope that the method I’m using continues to work. I am noticing it takes a lot of persistence, but it feels good when the emotions shift to something that serves me.
How did suicide become an issue that warranted LAWS to be made to prevent it ? How did people set themselves up as authorities over individual emotions & thoughts of others ? I’m outraged over the presumption of said people telling me my thought process is flawed or misguided but theirs is correct . Listen … listen to the people who have experienced the deep despair that gave them the idea , Their Life is not worth living & Their expression of how They Feel . NOT Your own philosophy . Not until You experience that level of despair do you have the right to cling to your philosophy & judge . If you should be so blessed as to never getting to that point , you can thank the heavens above for your good fortune . Those who live in the world of despair are the rightful judges of choosing suicide . They are the ones who know what it feels like to once have felt their hearts burst with joy upon seeing a humming bird on a beautiful flower . But because of pain, loss, illness & a myriad of other infirmity both physical & emotional can no longer SEE with the same eyes they once had . Listen … listen to those who KNOW !!
You are relying on anecdotal evidence. But, since you are going to do that, at least consider the preponderance of it. Please do take your own recommendation to “listen to those who know.” I’m one of those who know, and I disagree with you, particularly based upon the preponderance of the evidence. I support laws against suicide because statistics of the anecdotal evidence shows that right around 90% saved from suicide are thankful for it. Then it can be argued that 90% are people that would have survived their attempt anyway because , and so weren’t really wanting to do it. Which I do think is a really low accusation. But regardless, there are attempted suicides that the person most definitely should not have survived, and the suicidal person is thankful it didn’t happen – such as jumping over the Golden Gate Bridge. Why are you so bent on NOT protecting people who are happy their attempt at suicide failed? I’m NOT for punishing people who would NOT change their wants after a failed suicide attempt, but please tell – how to you predetermine the difference? Or, do your beliefs really lie with that it’s more important to protect the 10% or so of people’s right to kill themselves than it is to protect the 90% of people who are happy their suicide attempt failed? My beliefs are to continue to use laws to protect the 90% who are happy their suicide attempt failed, but to absolve the expenses of botched suicide attempts that didn’t physically harm the life another. What do you think?
I’d really like to see this study that everyone is referencing and if there is any bias in it. Did the survivors have a mental illness, were they in chronic pain, how many people were questioned, what was the demographic etc etc. It’s easy to make any study turn out the way you want it.
The biggest flaw to this argument is that you can’t ask everyone who succeeded if they are happy about it or not so you are only getting half the story at best.
Was there any follow-up of those same people done 5 years later, 10 years later or more and did they still feel the same.
I’d also like to add that one of the benefits of having a government run service is that there is an application process that you first have to be approved for which takes time and requires multiple doctor’s to sign off on it (at least in Canada). Then if you get approved you still have to chose a date to end your life.
All these delays will ensure that it gives the person a lot of time to make sure that that’s what they want and it’s impossible to have it be a rash decision.
Having these safeguards should dramatically reduce the issue of people regretting their choice.
Of course this won’t stop people from trying to do it on their own but what do you think is the smartest way to approach this issue of people who want to end their lives?
And what happens to the people who live in unending hell either mentally and/or physically when you force people to stay alive because you refuse to have a law that offers the only cure for their illness. And let’s not be mistaken, it is a fair number of circumstances where this is the only option wether you agree with it or not.
Are you really so callous and cruel as to subject this “10%” to decades of suffering which you can’t even comprehend because you only believe in an all or nothing philosophy.
I’m not sure why people can’t see the benefit of having a proper, government regulated system in place as it will only move us towards helping the people who truly want to die and saving those who don’t.
As a bonus, there is also a certain percentage (I don’t have any numbers but I’ve read enough posts on forums directly dealing with people who want to die) have said that even if they qualify for euthanasia it gives them the peace of mind that the option is there for them whenever they want it. Just having that comfort alone gives them the ability to hold off on making that choice right away as its a huge burden they no longer have to worry about.
Obviously this is not the case for everyone but that alone is a positive outcome. It may also keep them alive long enough where things may change for the better or the possibility that a new drug or surgery can give them enough relief where they never make that choice.
When you aren’t feeling like you are backed into a corner it leads to more rational choices which will inevitably reduce the number of “unwanted” suicides.
If that’s not a win win then I really don’t know how much more you can ask for considering how things are currently being handled.
Nodscene,
As usual, you make many compelling points, some of which are the reason I struggle with the question of how far society should go in preventing suicide. I take issue, however, with your implying that Sheila is “callous and cruel” for wanting to protect suicidal people who will go on to live a long life if only they survive, instead of letting those die who (one can only presume) would never again want to live.
If her stance on protecting others is callous and cruel, then we must also consider it callous and cruel for you to favor letting loved ones of the suicidal and entire communities suffer because of a suicidal person’s death. And I don’t think either of you, based on your comments here, are callous and cruel.
As a therapist, I don’t invoke the welfare of others when listening to a suicidal person. I understand that such a statement can create guilt and shame in those whose suicidal thoughts are not truly voluntary. But the reality is, a person’s suicide doesn’t just end the person’s life. It also places their loved ones at higher risk for suicide, bequeaths to them feelings of grief and guilt, and broadcasts to others, including children, that suicide is a solution when there are so many others.
I know, some people say the suicidal are selfish, and some say their loved ones are selfish for wanting them to stay alive. I don’t think the label of selfish can be applied to suicide, but I do think we can’t ignore the harm it does to others when we debate the merits of suicide prevention. A good book on this topic is Jennifer Michael Hecht’s Stay: A History of Suicide and the Arguments Against It.
Thanks for sharing here and adding to the discussion.
Sheila, that the majority of us are heterosexual doesn’t justify forcing the minority who are homosexual to undergo painful treatments that some claim helped them become what we, the majority, expect them to be. Decades after such programs, once sponsored by various psychological research publications and organizations, have been increasingly shown to be harmful to the minority and based on bogus “science,” they’ve largely been repudiated.
But yet, we’re supposed to deny freedoms to individuals who seem to be among the minority in their own self assessments? I don’t buy that. And I challenge anyone to provide statistically rigorous, validated evidence about “the majority of suicidals.” As a statistician who’s poured over decades of published studies on suicide, I’d be very interested in reading such studies.
There are, as has been published in the professional literature, major inferential biases in making claims about suicidals in general based on the skewed populations of those who’ve survived suicide attempts (and then subsequently interacted with values-biased law enforcement, court, and health care… systems), the inaccuracy of coroner judgments of cause-of-death, and understanding the complex thinking behind why some who, despite being suicidal, do not actively attempt suicide. These latter studies suffer from common but serious reporting bias.
Furthermore, there are other admitted data collection biases among suicide researchers–such as longterm follow-up among the suicidal to determine how people’s views change over time. And this doesn’t take into account the obvious anti-suicide cultural bias–much like it wouldn’t be inferentially valid to conclude that anti-gay psychological reprogramming “works for the majority” because, in a broadly anti-gay culture, the majority of those who go through such programs APPEAR to have been “cured” of homosexuality. People will often openly conform to the strong moral perspectives of their cultures–especially when these are enforced by law enforcement, the courts, and the authoritarian mental health system–very often brutally or even lethally so.
Interestingly, we also know that patients in a therapy setting often change their behavior and modify what they report based on their therapists’ biases. Again, the dominant values-based therapy-model in the West is extremely-strongly anti-suicide. Based on JUST this, we’d expect a strong reporting bias, at least during therapy, of “no longer feeling suicidal.” And this doesn’t even begin to capture the population about whom we know suicide risk INCREASES due to forced commitment and treatment–many who will say what the strongly anti-suicide therapeutic industry wants to hear just to escape what can be brutally abusive circumstances.
It’s also disingenuous to use another variation of the red herring I mentioned in my comment above: “Why are you so bent on NOT protecting people who are happy their attempt at suicide failed?” I mean no disrespect, but it’s hard for me to believe a reasonably well-educated person would conclude that supporting freedom-to-decide-for-self constitutes arguing AGAINST protecting people. No one anywhere in this comment section, or on any of the similar discourse boards I’ve ever participated on, has ever remotely argued people shouldn’t be entitled to seek out help or decide for themselves. This is, sadly, a common emotional ploy and reasoning fallacy used to justify denying people freedom.
Lastly, it’s curious that some argue “to use laws to protect the 90% who are happy their suicide attempt failed,” (I’ve already discussed why that claim is statistically specious) while many of these vote AGAINST policies international research tell us significantly lower suicide risk–such as affordable housing-first mandates, universal health care, a basic income to protect the poor, MORE worker rights, transforming legal systems so those who most desperately need help can get it reliably and affordably… Our culture, our best minds have published evidence on, has been becoming LESS “equal” over time and this diminished democratic (or, if you prefer, authentic representative) government and economic style pushes the vulnerable to their limits. It also pushes, as coronavirus has shown us, many of the so-called middle class into poverty with its attendant increased suicide risk (studies on the relationship between unemployment and suicide risk show, for example, that it is financial insecurity rather than merely unemployment that drives the bulk of increased suicide risk in this population). Suicide risks among the homeless, for example, have been found to be TEN times higher than in the general population. But culturally we aren’t doing much effectively to address these factors, despite having more than enough wealth and resources. The politically active and influential anti-suicide community is conspicuously absent from the fight to force politicians and other legislative powers to change most of this.
Some argue that we can do BOTH–address the social failures pushing many to consider suicide while continuing to FORCE ALL suicidals to behave as we expect. But while we’ve increased the power of therapists and the courts and police to often violently coerce the suicidal, we haven’t done much about the former we claim to also care about. I think this is because it’s much easier to treat the suicidal as “sick” and personally responsible for their condition than it is to collectively assume responsibility for building a kind of culture that precipitates suicidality.
One quick comment about your statement about ” the expenses of botched suicide attempts that didn’t physically harm the life another.” Many suicidals suffer greatly in their determination to die because they are censored in speaking about suicide and acquiring means to leave life peacefully and relatively painlessly.
But more and more countries around the world and local jurisdictions are changing laws to empower personal autonomy. So opinions about what is “right” are changing. Since no one is financially or personally responsible for the suicidal–especially those who don’t have loving families and enough money to stay afloat–I predict that freedom-to-decide will become the prevalent legal position in the future.
AB,
I appreciate your commenting here and sharing arguments that show how complicated this topic is. I want to address a couple points:
I don’t think the comparison you make with gay people and so-called reparative therapy is a valid one. I vehemently oppose efforts to change a person’s sexual orientation, and those efforts just aren’t comparable to suicide prevention. Subjecting gay people to harmful therapy harms only them and doesn’t harm the majority who aren’t gay. However, failing to protect suicidal people does harm to those whose death is unnecessary and premature, as demonstrated by research that shows that the majority of people who survive a suicide attempt do not go on to die by suicide.
Which leads me to another point. I think your comment (and others here, as well) mix up two constructs. There’s the question of whether we should protect people at imminent risk of suicide, which U.S. law currently permits. And there’s the question of whether we should create a law permitting assisted suicide or euthanasia for suicidal people, even in the absence of terminal illness. Obviously there is overlap between these two constructs, but they are not the same.
When I speak of suicide prevention, I’m referring to the first construct. I may write a blog post sometime down the road differentiating the arguments between the two.
Thanks again for sharing here.
Thanks for continuing this discussion, Stacey. I want to address some of your replies to my argument.
You wrote, “Subjecting gay people to harmful therapy harms only them and doesn’t harm the majority who aren’t gay… However, failing to protect suicidal people does harm to those whose death is unnecessary and premature, as demonstrated by research that shows that the majority of people who survive a suicide attempt do not go on to die by suicide.” First, it is a convenience of historical perspective that reparative therapy is now considered “harmful.” It is also arguable that a society that permits the revocation of some citizens’ civil rights based on others’ perspectives and evaluations does, indeed, harm the rest of us, too. Minimally, it sets a precedent for what the courts and authorities can do to the otherwise free, law-abiding citizen.
When psychology and therapy felt differently about homosexuality, these professions offered arguments justifying treating homosexuality as a mental disease–including forcing individuals to undergo painful procedures because therapists and doctors were convinced they knew what was in the best interest of patients, their families, and society as a whole. Then, as now, there were published studies supposedly validating the personal and social threat of homosexuality–and validating anti-gay therapies. Now, society is making a similar reasoning error in presuming to know what is best for individuals and society, again, where individual life evaluation is concerned–a matter that is outside the realm of scientific scrutiny. This is what some scholars have called “secular religion,” in which the views of some can be used to circumscribe the personal values, judgments, and freedoms of others regarding their own lives.
Second, I take issue with the justification of using force to prevent deaths deemed “unnecessary and premature.” Indeed, medicine already allows deaths that are unnecessary and premature–in the case of abortion, patients’ entitlement to forego medical interventions evidence shows lengthens lifespan, and remarkably the prerogative insurance companies enjoy in choosing to deny medical experts’ advice for life-saving interventions or setting drug prices beyond the affordability of millions.
None of the preceding even begins to touch on massive systemic state policies we know contribute to excess morbidity and mortality burdens we not only permit but also allow to become more widespread–like decades-long exploding income inequality. While I understand you and others likely think these precipitating issues bad, too, that they remain so firmly entrenched in American society (and are getting much worse) I think argues there is some OTHER reason we justify FORCING the suicidal in particular to stay alive–not that we want to prevent “unnecessary and premature” death.
You also shared, “There’s the question of whether we should protect people at imminent risk of suicide.” The answer to this question cannot be based in either science or statistics as neither of these disciplines is morally evaluative. The answer people come to is based on their individual and cultural values–as the US Supreme Court has commented in its record-setting Citizens United vs FEC case (558 U.S. 310), a JUDGEMENT as to whether to fall on the side of freedom or imposed responsibility. Regarding suicide, US culture falls in the imposed “responsibility” camp. Now. Despite the majority of Americans surveyed preferring freedom to choose regarding end-of-life decision-making by a growing margin.
Lastly, I want to address the assertion, “…research that shows that the majority of people who survive a suicide attempt do not go on to die by suicide.” This betrays a common statistical fallacy–generalizing (about what is true everywhere) based on inferences drawn from limited research and populations (important unaccounted for differences between patient populations and the real-world population–especially those research has not/cannot account for). A common source of this statistic is the 2002 Owens-Horracks-House BJP publication, “Fatal and non-fatal repetition of self-harm: systematic review.” Even in this frequently cited European study, repeat attempters’ suicide rates significantly increased as follow up time increased–by as much as ten-fold. And this in a strongly anti-suicide culture.
And studies such as those in the Owens et al. systematic review generally fail to account for survivors’ quality of life over follow up. This betrays another fundamental evaluative bias that being alive is always better than not being alive, even when the life is just the sort of life all parents are terrified their children will have (chronically lonely, suffocating in lifetime poverty, tied to desperate and exhausting low wage labor, enduring insidious chronic pain, weighed down by ubiquitous systemic discrimination…). Again, the answer to this question (Is living always better than dying?) is outside the purview of the sciences. It instead varies with individuals’ values and perspectives.
The problem in answering the question about the value of being alive is that one set of cultural values and perspectives is presented in the US as if these were themselves unimpeachable facts. It should be humbling to researchers that different countries at least as sophisticated as the US conclude differently. Just as in a largely homophobic culture, data collection, patient assessment, and meaning ascribed to data are all biased by researchers’, patients’, and society’s general worldviews, the same is true of at least some of the meaning we ascribe to suicide data.
I’ll end by sharing that if we’re going to force people to stay alive, then we ought to assume responsibility for their lives–financial, medical, social services, affordable housing, companionship… It’s breathtaking to me that we will go so far as to rescind patients’ civil rights to prevent them from dying from suicide, but we’ll release them back into the same environments abundant published evidence divulges increases depression and suicide risks. Maybe we’re discussing two different communities, then: those who have enough resources (loved ones, money…) to help them reconsider life once therapy and the hospital are done with them, and those who lack such resources. In the meantime, sadly, many who MIGHT otherwise benefit from interacting with the healthcare system, if they can afford it, will choose not to out of an understandable fear of coercion and an awareness that they simply lack the resources to afford staying alive with appreciable dignity.
AB,
These are all important points to consider. Thanks for making them. I want to say for now that, yes, you’re right that people in the majority are harmed when others’ rights are taken away (as Martin Niemöller conveyed so powerfully). So-called reparative therapy is, as you note , an example of that. I was (imperfectly, it turns out) trying to make the point that the analogy with protecting people from suicide doesn’t fit. To the contrary, *not* protecting people from suicide does harm to communities and loved ones. With that said, that’s not my motivation in helping suicidal people to stay alive and feel better; I say it only to show why the analogy doesn’t fit, in my opinion.
I agree completely that society needs to do more to make life worth living. A good place to start would be to not charge people for unnecessary medical care that they received against their express wishes. I know someone whose ex-partner called the police about the person’s suicidal statements. The police took the person to an ER for an evaluation, and it was judged they weren’t in imminent danger of suicide. And a week later they got a hospital bill for thousands of dollars. I think if the government creates a mechanism for this to happen, then the government should pay for it.
Stacey:
This is in reply to your comment from October 27, 2020 at 12:21 pm.
You wrote: “*not* protecting people from suicide does harm to communities and loved ones”.
I would like to point out that this is not necessarily the case. In many of the documented cases of euthanasia on psychiatric grounds in Belgium and the Netherlands, the people that request euthanasia clearly have the support of their family and close friends in their decision. In several other cases, which are sad indeed, the person making the request is estranged from their family and the family doesn’t care for their decision one way or the other.
Personally, even if euthanasia on psychiatric grounds was permitted in my country (it isn’t), I would not request it as long as both my parents are alive, because I know it would devastate them. I suspect many others think the same.
The evidence of the 90% who were purportedly glad their suicide attempt failed has to take into account the fact that, if they were to deny this and say that they still wanted to die, they could be forcefully confined to a psychiatric ward, with potentially no end in sight until they were ready to say that they no longer wanted to die – whether or not they actually meant that. I personally may have reported, if asked, that I was glad to have been intercepted in my attempt, simply out of fear of when I might see freedom again and whether I would ever be able to reattempt suicide.
In any case, it is unacceptable and downright medieval to use the force of law to trap even a minority in a life that they find not worth living, and there are ways in which you can give people who might be inclined to attempt suicide impulsively a cooling off period whilst also not having a blanket law that prevents self determination. My suggestion would be having an assisted suicide system which required a waiting period and counselling before the person could be assisted to die. Ultimately, even if there were still a large proportion who would have ended up wanting to live if they were forced to, they won’t regret their decision once they’re dead, whereas the ones who you forced to remain alive and didn’t come to be glad at that will be tormented. On a personal level, I have overcome a lot of psychological suffering in my life, but the one thing that still causes me great anguish is to know that if I decide that I no longer want to live, people such as yourself believe that I should still be legally forced, through any means possible, to continue my life against my will. That is a terrifying thought to me and makes it really difficult to focus on ways that I can help myself to enjoy my life more. A prison can become a home once you have the key, and life can become more bearable if I know that there is a safe and guaranteed way out of it.
I believe that this would go a long way towards allaying any honest concerns that you might have about people who were in a distorted state of mind at the time of their suicide attempt, because not only would this system not provide assistance to people at the first point of contact, but it would also draw in people who might otherwise have killed themselves on an impulse, because they would rather wait and ensure that they have a safe, dignified and reliable suicide method.
People who are anti-suicide will tend to brook absolutely no compromise at all, because at its heart, they object to suicide based on either some religious notion that human life is sacred, or perhaps out of fear that suicide really can be, and often is, a rational choice. I think that their defence mechanism against this is to avoid addressing the philosophical arguments in favour of the rationality of suicide by lumping all suicidal people together into one category of deranged people, all of whom are uniformly incapable of rational thought and incompetent to make decisions based on their own values and in their own interests. This approach further entrenches the stigma that exists towards suicidal people and also the mentally ill.
Michael,
Thanks for your rich and well thought-out comment. I want to address one thing you said: “people such as yourself believe that I should still be legally forced, through any means possible, to continue my life against my will.” Laws in the U.S. permit professionals to protect someone from suicide only when the person makes it clear to others that they are at imminent risk for suicide. There is no mechanism that allows anyone to force you to continue living against your will in the absence of this evidence. Your statement makes it sound like suicide prevention advocates want you to be locked up in a hospital for years or subject to invasive home visits and constraints to ensure you stay alive or to some other measure – “through any means possible” – to force you stay alive, and such a system simply doesn’t exist.
Stacey, thank you for your response. I am not able to submit this in direct response to your comment, however I know that you will see this comment. As far as I am aware, in this country (UK), there is absolutely no provision for someone to be able to waive suicide prevention even if, like myself, they have previously been in contact with mental health authorities (in my cases, I was intercepted prior to a suicide attempt…which is a long story that I can’t really go into without sharing details of suicide methods!) and found to not be suffering from mental illness. Which is quite an achievement, especially since the criteria for mental illness are so subjective and arbitrary and prone to change with each new iteration of the DSM.
The thought that really gives me particular terror is in relation to the expansion and development of surveillance technologies. I fear that if human civilisation does not correct the course that we are on (suicide must be prevented at all costs and there is never a legitimate reason for suicide, save perhaps for those facing terminal illness), we could end up in a situation in which everyone has to have a chip implanted in their skin in order to conduct basic everyday transactions such as buying food; but that this chip will also have the facility to monitor certain vital signs and also GPS technology. If such technology were to be invented and widely rolled out, suicide could become impossible in the future, because the data from the chip could detect disturbances that correlate with what is known to happen in advance of or during a suicide attempt, and this would immediately send an alert to the police or ambulance services to the person’s coordinates.
I know that this sounds like a dystopian sci-fi scenario. But it is very clear that society has absolutely zero appetite for allowing suicide to occur outside of the cases of the terminally ill, or even admitting that it is possible for a suicidal person to be in a rational frame of mind; and there is even a ‘zero suicide’ initiative that you may have heard of; which is trying to do exactly what the name suggests. I’d be interested to know what your views on this are, as a professional in the field:
https://www.theguardian.com/society/2017/aug/01/zero-suicide-the-bold-new-fight-to-eradicate-suicide
I was absolutely terrified to see this published in The Guardian, which is one of the most liberal news sources in the UK. There was also a documentary on the BBC which explored the zero suicide initiative. After overcoming a lot of my mental struggling, I am finding it very difficult to get past the anguish about my entrapment.
Michael, Yes I agree the 90% statistic I used was a bad statistic, and I now realize that. Thank you for your wonderfully balanced statements aiming at protecting the rights of those who would want death, those who would decide they want life, and those who would legitimately change their mind after a cooling off period. And, I think you would agree that there are people in a state of mind that they are not thinking rationally at the time.
Thank you for describing ways to treat all people in these varied situations with dignity. Particularly the people capable of rational thought and competent to make decisions based on their own values and in their own interests currently do not have their thinking supported well.
I agree with everything you’ve said here. And, I’m one of those who have some notion that human life is sacred. But believing life is sacred, it’s hypocritical for me to believe that my “rational” thoughts are somehow right in comparison to someone else’s rational thoughts to commit suicide based on their own values and in their own interests. If life under the circumstances of the current world status is sacred, then so is liberty to make rational competent decisions based on one’s own values and in one’s own interests. In my opinion life loses its sacredness if liberty to rational competent decisions isn’t just as sacred . I believe it is just as sacred as life, even though it’s not treated as such.
But, I also believe that the life of a person making irrational decisions isn’t any less sacred than the person making rational decisions. I like how you’ve worded valuing all people.
Sheila , I don’t think you grasped what I said . For the 90% of those who are grateful for having failed their attempt ( though I question that statistic ) have you followed up on the many in the 90% who have made 2nd & 3rd attempts ? You’ve set yourself up as a Protector . That’s quite noble but you are not With these people you claim you want to protect …. you leave that to Law Makers & Mental Health professional to do the ” protecting” . The survivors are left feeling More guilt ridden , & Shame along with feeling even More of a Failure than they were before . If you are amongst the survivor group & able to resolve the reason you made the attempt in the 1st place , I applaud you . NOW … let’s get back to Suicide !! To those who try … it’s their last ditch effort at SELF MERCY… probably the only time they will ever feel Merciful toward themselves !! You can’t protect a persons mind from himself . You don’t have the skill & certainly not the right to control a person’s mind . As the incidents of suicide are increasing , it is apparent that LAWS aren’t fixing IT … the same for Therapists . Both of these methods only foster a larger sense of FAILURE for those who attempt the act . Talk to me when you’re sitting & talking to someone who you KNOW you convinced & thanked you for saving them . You’ve then earned the right to say you are a Protector to someone’s life .
Lamb,
Some people who are thwarted from suicide might feel guilt, shame, etc. Some might attempt suicide as an act of mercy toward themselves. Some might feel like a failure afterward. But not all. Definitely not all. I am somebody who attempted suicide, who was protected, etc., and I do not fall neatly into the group you describe. I did feel some shame, but it passed, and I achieved mercy toward myself in ways that didn’t involve my death. I’m not saying that because I survived, everyone can. I know it’s not that simple. But I also know that it’s an overgeneralization for you to speak for all survivors as if your opinions are their — are my — truth.
Thanks for contributing here again. This is a very rich, provocative discussion.
Sheila,
Thank you for adding your thoughts about this contentious topic. You raise the excellent point that we must decide whether we should let suicidal people die even though the vast majority would survive once the suicidal crisis passes, or protect suicidal people from themselves even though a minority of those will oppose it.
I struggle with the laws that permit (and even require, in some jurisdictions) therapists and other professionals to thwart somebody’s suicide attempt. I understand all too well the limitations that this places on people who want to seek help, but are too afraid of being involuntarily hospitalized to do so, or who do seek help but are too afraid to tell their therapist of suicidal thoughts because … again … they don’t want to be involuntarily hospitalized. Or stopped from suicide, either.
But I always go back in my head to the point your comment implicitly raises: how do we predetermine whose suicide is going to happen, regardless, and who will be glad to be alive after the suicidal crisis has passed? It’s impossible to know that someone’s suicide is inevitable. And whose plight do we privilege, those who want to die (and whose survival is revocable) or those who will want to live (and whose death is, of course, irrevocable)? I know the argument that those who would want to live won’t be able to regret it if they’re dead, but I’ve seen too many lives restored after their survival – and too many loved ones’ lives destroyed after a suicidal person’s death – to disregard the very real possibility that helping even a profoundly determined suicidal person to stay alive is a good thing.
With that said, I do want to raise a question about what I think is an error in your comment. I’m not aware of any research showing that 90% of people who survive a suicide attempt are thankful they survived. Could you direct us to such studies? What I’m familiar with is related, and it gives me hope: research shows that 90% of people who survive a suicide attempt don’t go on to die by suicide. Not incidentally, this objective fact refutes those who say people will say they regret their attempt only as a means to avoid hospitalization.
Even if you have misremembered the research or can’t provide a citation, the essence of your statement still holds true, with minor modification: “Do your beliefs really lie with that it’s more important to protect the 10% or so of people’s right to kill themselves than it is to protect the 90% of people who will go on to live life without dying by suicide? My beliefs are to continue to use laws to protect the 90% who survive well after the suicidal crisis ends.”
Thank you again for jumping into the fray. I know you’ll receive many comments disagreeing with you, and I think it’s important to let you know that I agree and appreciate your sharing.
Thank you so much for correcting me regarding 90% regretting suicide attempt! Sorry about that. Yes, big difference between that and “90% of people who survive a suicide attempt don’t go on to die by suicide.” You are right that there are so many other possible reasons for that than that the person regrets the attempt. And, specifically the regret being that person now wants to live, and not some other regret.
Yes, I think it important to consider whether we are deciding it’s more important to protect people’s right to kill themselves than it is to protect the people who would go on to live life without regretting not dying by suicide. And, can we protect both?
Stacey, I sooo agree with this: “I think if the government creates a mechanism for this to happen, then the government should pay for it.”
That should TOTALLY be a federal law.
90% of the people (approx) are glad they wear a helmet riding a motorcycle, specially after a crash. But that SHOULD NOT CHANGE LAWS if i don’t want to wear one. IT IS MY RIGHT… it is my life and my choice. i don’t know the % of women who regret having an abortion.. but i know it is high specially after time has past. Should we make laws taking women’s rights to have one away? Because others regretted it? I know these are not the same, but the end result is. YOU and people as yourself, your beliefs and wishes you want to trump MY wishes, because others also agreed with you who ‘tried’. You also know some who ‘tried’ really never intended on taking their life but as a desperate cry. THOSE people need help and i wouldn’t not consider then the ‘suicidal’ people who really want to die. What about smoking? people who smoke and ended up with horrible health say they wish they never started and wish laws were in place so they couldn’t. NO.. take responsibility …. you smoke.. you were in control. But people want us to have laws to govern people who just can’t or don’t’ want to own their own responsibility. Will this cause some to perish that maybe really didn’t want to? yes.. but that shouldn’t change laws because they cannot and won’t take full responsibility for their own actions. that is WRONG in my opinion.
Also, what about the people who did try, got stopped (by law) got committed for a month and have to pay all those bills AND NOW, if they have any surgery (which i did) wasn’t allowed to sign a DNR unless they have a doc (therapist) sign off for them. HOW WRONG IS THAT??? THAT IS ABSURD. If people demand others live.. then i demand to stop their freedom on what they want that i think is wrong. Like maybe praying to a God or going to church. See when you bring it down to the level that is taking away others freedoms and choices … people start to argue and say, no that is not the same. but it is.
LET ME CHOOSE WHAT I WANT TO DO… WITHOUT THAT CONCERNS ME AND I WILL LET YOU CHOOSE WHAT YOU WANT TO DO THAT CONCERNS YOU… .as long as you are not harming others.
thank you for listening. blessings to you.
Scott, you touched on a lot of valid points. Im not disagreeing with how you feel. Those of us who have prayed not to wake up in the morning, feel much the same way as you.
Consider the bible. God gave us 10 commandments one being “thou shall not kill”. Yet in the old testament, God told Abraham to kill his son Isaac. God himself kill a lot of “sinners” like Sodem and Gomora. (Excuse my spellings and typos).
We kill our pets we believe to be suffering. We do kill unborn children through abortion. This is supposed to be a free country. Freedom to live our lives the way WE choose. If we choose to smoke, do drugs, over eat, etc, its our choice, yet are we only hurting ourselves? Think of smoking. Second hand smoke can kill or harm others. Abortions are killing another would be person. Suicide does not only affect the one who dies. It leaves others who care and love them with pain and suffering.
Our own pain, physical or emotional pain can leave us suffering daily. But there is help. You have to concentrate on finding that help rather than focus on our pain. Finding help is one of the hardest things you will ever have to do. Suicide is “the easy way out”. Its not easy. Each of our pain is different and for different reasons. Finding that one person who can help us ease that pain can be like finding a needle in a hay stack. But trying, focusing, self help, one step at a time, it can be done. We are all made up of flesh and blood. Molecules, neurons and electrons, etc. There are ways to fix the problems. If you focus on finding the fix not focus on the problem….things can turn around and you may see why you are still here. You have a purpose and can possibly help others who pray for death too. You are valuable and have a purpose. Just my 2 cents.
Scott, a society rigged for people to make uninformed decisions is not “choice,” that’s cruelty. It’s harming others if we as a society favor allowing systemic cruelty based on people making uninformed decisions that easily didn’t have to happen that way. Women who later regret an abortion do so because they made an uninformed decision. It’s assumed ALL know what they are doing, despite the evidence to the contrary that many made an uninformed decision. Blindly choosing between door number 1 or door number 2 is choice. But, it’s far less a choice if some magic trick has you thinking you know what’s on the other side of each door, but you find out it was really a clever (or not so clever) illusion. It’s not so simple as me “choosing” regarding what concerns me; & you “choosing” as to what concerns you. It’s more about caring that people get to make informed decisions. And, that would include society not rigging things to punish suicidal people with bills over attempted suicide. There’s a whole lot going wrong that’d be greatly improved if strong focus was put on people getting to make informed decisions; and also not giving people who’ve attempted suicide even more reason to want to die – such as monetary costs. Thank you for your response and blessings to you.
Scott, I–and a lot of others whom you won’t read about thanks to the overwhelming censorship of pro-choice arguments–agree with you. But just like we can’t convince people of other religious arguments (god exists/doesn’t exist…) because these arguments aren’t based on demonstrable facts but instead how people feel about things, we’ll never be able to convince most people their position on suicide is harmful or even philosophically indefensible/inconsistent. I generally won’t waste my time having these non-facts discussions.
Sadly, those who presume their tastes and values are sufficient to subject others to their moral scrutiny and even deny us freedom to choose for ourselves will fuel a significant underground for people to do with our own lives exactly what they’ve successfully made far more difficult. We lost the war against alcohol (Prohibition) and modern scholars write about how we’ve lost/are losing the war on drugs. We’ve never succeeded in commanding others how to feel about and what to do with their own bodies/private lives. But America thinks it can eradicating suicide…
Life is tough and often unfair. No one should be obliged to keep living when methods they’ve tried have failed to make things better enough for him/her. It boggles my mind that we’re even having such a discussion. Like very, very many others the world over, I am certain that I will do what is in my best interests–as I alone determine–when the time is right for me. I feel utterly justified in ignoring others’ OPINIONS on the matter. Thanks to the anti-suicide platform’s openness, however, I know I must protect myself against coercion.
Best of luck to you and thanks for adding your voice to the insistence on personal freedom.
Regardless of what you think or say about so called 90%. Well then let’s make abortion illegal because a very very high percentage of women who have abortion later in life regret it. Let’s make eating all kinds of badd food illegal because as we get older we all wish OI should 8 better I should exercised so if we don’t exercise let’s make that illegal and start punching people in jail or throwing him in the hospital your argument is absurd. If the people didn’t want to kill themselves they want of and it just because other people decide I changed my mind because I made it you shouldn’t make it illegal. Yes some people do change their mind. So let’s say they changed their mind now you’re putting more legal issues on them more restrictions more money problems you don’t think that also makes those people decide some of them that Hey now I’m worse off now. Just because people change their mind doesn’t mean you have the ability or the right to decide this should be a law for the people who don’t want to change their mind! I don’t create laws of something I don’t like that you like or that you want to do you shouldn’t be able to create laws just because you disagree with what I want! That’s making you God and your not God!. Sorry but this burns me up. ONE group, because they disagree and think they are smarter and know better than PEOPLE who really know cuz they are living the pure hell EVERYDAY… You dont know anything. We all are different. Even if you went through same exact thing as me and surviving and want to live….doesnt mean you still know how I FEEL… think about that.
Src,
You bring up good, insightful questions about why we protect people from suicide but not from other actions they might regret. Thanks for adding to the discussion.
Ninety percent do not die by suicide. That is not the same as being happy to live or being happy the attempt failed.
Perfect, Lamb!!
Many who use force (legal, law enforcement…) to compel ALL suicidal people to stay alive are the same people who, when pushed, will admit that (1) they can’t guarantee the cessation of pain (they’ll use purposely vague language like “It’s our goal to help people MANAGE their pain” or “…to improve their coping mechanisms”…) & (2) they’re entitled to dismiss/fire/abandon the suicidal (whom they’ll often, as a last resort, vilify for being manipulative or selfish) if the suicidal don’t begin showing signs of “progress” (thinking and behaving the way OTHERS deem appropriate–even when this behavior/thinking concerns JUST the suicidal).
And this has never been about preventing those who want help from accessing it. That’s the common red herring used as a counterargument to personal autonomy. It’s about entitling people who’ve sought help but found it ineffective or insufficient the dignity to decide for themselves what is best for them. But after tens of thousands of years of civilization, humans still find it hard to grant each other such personal freedom.
I agree with this – “I’m outraged over the presumption of said people telling me my thought process is flawed or misguided but theirs is correct “…the assumption that people who are suicidal must have a Mental Illness. Furthermore, “Not until You experience that level of despair do you have the right to cling to your philosophy & judge . If you should be so blessed as to never getting to that point , you can thank the heavens above for your good fortune . Those who live in the world of despair are the rightful judges of choosing suicide . They are the ones who know what it feels like to once have felt their hearts burst with joy upon seeing a humming bird on a beautiful flower .” All of these apply to me. I used to have hope, was sensitive to all the beauty and potential in this world, had hopes and dreams. But through my own actions, I inadvertently prevented those hopes and dreams from materialising. I was given a Mental Health label, but it hasn’t helped me. I truly cannot see a comfortable future, I can only see myself getting old, continuing to be alone, and having too much time to be haunted by my appalling life choices. I think that the majority, including Mental Health professionals, are so frightened by the idea of suicide that they will do anything to portray it as an irrational act, by irrational people. Many of us who are suicidal will have contemplated suicide for many years, and sought help and alternatives to it. We will have fought for our own survival. But eventually there is no solution anymore, and suicide seems to be the only answer. You have to get to this point to understand it.
Lamb, I just want to thank you for that post. It was passionate, accurate, and honestly no one can’t rightfully debate anything you said. If they try then they have absolutely no clue what hell people go through on a minute by minute basis.
I want people who read this to try and get an inkling of what life is like living and suffering through it not on a daily basis like most, or even in their 8 hour increments, but having every second and minute be a timeframe that is a struggled to get through.
Thankfully here in Canada it looks like they are finally going to change the law that prevents people without a life threatening illness to be able to apply for euthanasia (or whatever the politically correct term is now). Let’s hope they don’t screw it up this time. With any luck I’ll be the first in line.
Lamb,
Your message is powerful and conveys the important point that we need to listen to those who know the pain and suffering that causes people to no longer see reasons for staying alive. What do you think, though, of those who know all too well what it’s like to be deeply suicidal but also support suicide prevention? I am one of those people.
I describe some of my experiences with suicide in my essay A Suicide Therapist’s Secret Past and Why I Came Out of the (Suicide) Closet.
A big reason I publicly disclosed that I’ve attempted suicide is because so many commenters here made assumptions that I couldn’t possibly understand what it’s like to live in the world of despair that you describe. I understand all too well. I lived there for years. And I’m tremendously grateful now to have survived.
Thank you for sharing your thoughts here and adding to the conversation. I hope that you recover from the deep pain or infirmity that prompted your message or, at least, find reasons for living in spite of it. I list resources for help at http://www.speakingofsuicide.com/resources/#immediatehelp.
Stacie, after re-reading this blog’s comments thanks to an email alert, I came upon this comment from you: “…we need to listen to those who know the pain and suffering that causes people to no longer see reasons for staying alive.” I wasn’t going to make a comment, but there’s a point I think is critical to the end-of-life decision-making dialog responsible for more and more nations around the world expanding citizens’ legal access to medical assistance in dying.
I don’t mean to argue that YOU meant this, but the construction “causes people to no longer see reasons for staying alive” suggests there are objective, hard-scientific reasons (beyond the physiological) for staying alive. That we know of, this simply is not true. Rather, people tend to create—and change—reasons that appear to work for them. That so many can create such divergent “reasons” argues that reasons-to-stay-alive are another kind of perspective. That so many of us hold the same perspectives (“my children are my reason…” “protecting my group/country… is my reason…”) is hardly surprising in a species that shares a neurological (and hence behavioral) heritage.
I think the above is critical because it can change the argument from “I cannot see the-reasons-that-are-there to stay alive because my ‘sight’ is impaired” to “Even after searching, I don’t find a reason that to me is sufficient for staying alive.” Only if reasons exist objectively is there a scientifically valid justification for expecting others to perceive such reasons. And science, that I know of, has never divulged such reasons. That many of us have created such reasons doesn’t logically imply that the reasons are real outside our beliefs. Equally important, it doesn’t imply others are “sick” (or “possessed” or “wrong” or whatever other scarlet letter a given culture wants to use to label those who don’t conform enough to the culture’s ideological standards) simply because they reject all others’ reasons OR conclude there are no reasons for them.
As I’m sure you’ve followed it, the Supreme Court of arguably our closest cultural neighbor, Canada, ruled in 2015 that Canadians have a constitutional right to medical assistance in dying (MAID)—and that MAID does NOT exclude what, to the individual, is unbearable psychological suffering absent a physical condition that independently would imminently abridge lifespan. Since there doesn’t seem to be any scientific reason an individual must ascribe value to (her/his) life, and since cultures at least as sophisticated as ours conclude radically differently on end-of-life decision-making, it strikes me as intellectually indefensible to conclude that people cannot rationally decide to leave life. Or that grave psychological pain necessarily dissolves rationality. To the argument that there is no societal construct preventing such people from leaving, all we have to do is consult verified news reports and legal proceedings of adults being apprehended for seeking out peaceful exits. Or websites vigorously sanctioning adults from discussing such matters.
A zero-suicide culture is not a “free” culture. It’s a culture in which life, unsought, is an obligation rather than a gift. I would rather we all work towards a culture in which no one WANTS to leave life because it is so easy for us all to find reasons that justify our continued existence.
Thanks for allowing another perspective.
I think the most sterile reason is capitalism. If you delete yourself, the government loses your taxes, a potential worker, debtors will never be repaid, plus all the work that comes along with dealing with ‘you’. Paperwork and logistics will need to happen, which is more time & money. Not a lot in the greater scheme of things, and your family won’t even be liable for it (depending on where you live, etc.) so shame isn’t the issue. From the lawmakers point of view, suicide is a problem and laws are made to tell you, officially, not to cause the problem.
It’s the same argument for/made by most religions, but here on Earth. For the small number of people who have to be told “No, bad” not to do something AND who will care about the potential consequences, laws might dissuade them. You go on about philosophy & feelings, but the LAW has neither. It is a cold, unfeeling rule book.
Laws/rules exist because something happened that caused them to “need” to be. Every sign you see that says/shows you not to put your hand into something dangerous exists solely because someone somewhere put their hand in it already. Which again, on the emotional side says “hey, you’ll get hurt”, but on the unfeeling, lawful side says you’ll be less uselful with one less hand, maybe damage the dangerous thing, and the time it takes to clean up the mess is also lost productivity, so boom, it is now ILLEGAL to put your hand in the thing. NO. BAD.
There are far too many illogical laws for your description to be completely accurate. Also, you’re relying on reasoning and community interest to guide the law makers but most politicians are not that intellectual and I haven’t seen one in decades I would describe as selfless. I think you’re giving the opposition to assisted suicide far too much credit with your argument.
@Blah Many of us agree with you, Blah. Suicide prevention largely comes down to the entitlement the powerful feel to CONTROL others who’re useful to the powerful. Look at what we learned JUST from the pandemic (in the US). Many of the poor who’re barely surviving check to check were labeled “essential workers,” and the wealthy corporate moguls who own the businesses that employ the poor–including the state–DEMANDED the poor go back to work despite unsafe conditions and assume risks the wealthy owners refused to be responsible for. We all know that right now the US Senate is considering legislation to shield businesses from lawsuits resulting from employees getting sick while on the job due to coronavirus. All because the poor are so critical to the economy but otherwise considered so low-value. They do the dirty jobs the rest of society doesn’t want to. And in return, it can cost them their lives. Still, the status quo doesn’t care–responding with threats of firing and the specter of homelessness. What’s important is the precious economy which depends on armies of low wage, devalued human laborers.
Another benefit to the state from an anti-suicide position is that, thanks to the “mental health” industry, the state can justify ignoring the evidenced negative relationships between chronic poverty, childhood poverty, homelessness, relentless attrition of worker rights, lack of affordable housing, unaffordable health care, and lack of affordable access to protective legal services because, the state can claim, many victims suffer from a “mental illness.” Therefore, the appropriate intervention is drugs and therapy, not changing laws or improving the administration of justice or redistributing survival resources equitably. The state doesn’t have to do anything to address the cripplingly acetic life circumstances that can rob humans of hope, personal value, and the motivation to live. Because we’d succeed, or minimally gracefully endure lifelong poverty and survival insecurity and poor health, if only we thought the right thoughts. Absurd.
Reality so well put! Thank you for wording it so well! Such oppression is put on the poorer people of our nation ( USA). The nation would do well to at least financially remedy that disparity, Sadly, it would not be hard, but simply isn’t being done.
I haven’t given my opinion in quite some time because I’ve been reading the replies from the people who have responded to this site . I think many feel there is still a stigma attached to suicide . The labels of mentally ill , not in your right mind , seem to foster the idea that due to you mental state you’re not too intelligent either. It is implied , especially from the “authoritative ” bodies that make the laws & yes, even your friends & loved ones. Having read so many replies , I found myself riveted to the comments . Why ? Because every person who has weighed in ,is So bright , intelligent & cogent. I excuse myself from this observation because I didn’t give my opinion on suicide by measuring how intelligent I was or the intelligence of other contributors, I was merely talking from emotion. This observation led me to being amused by how “outsiders” perceive the suicidal. I continue to read the comments with the zeal of one reading a great book of knowledge & learning . Thank You to all who comment to this site . Lamb
There’s no reply button for Bruce so i am leaving this under the original commenter, Lamb:
“Second hand smoke can kill or harm others. Abortions are killing another would be person. Suicide does not only affect the one who dies. It leaves others who care and love them with pain and suffering.”
The point of individual liberty is that an act is fine so long as it doesn’t harm someone else. If smoking releases fumes that poison others (which it does) then it shouldn’t be a right. I will give you that. If abortion kills babies then it shouldn’t be a right (but abortion doesn’t do that as fetuses are not babies so that is a bad example.) however, how others react to a decision one makes for themselves is NOT the same as being directly impacted by it. How others react, what opinions they have of it is their responsibility, not that of the suicidal person. If their opinions override those of the individual, honestly that argument could be used to deny any human right whenever the loudest minority complains. Have you seen how viscerally some folk react to gay marriage for instance? It’s a completely harmless decision concerning oneself (and their partner but beyond that no one else.) doesn’t stop some from viewing it as a perversion, something that makes them sick to their stomach. Does that mean we should ban it for others? Honestly reeks of entitlement big time. I don’t have any counterpoints for the rest of your argument because they are just empty platitudes and proselytizing, which I shouldn’t have to explain why they’re wrong.
Hello Stacey,
I would like to give an example of a dilemma where the consensus among the legal and medical professions, as well as the general public, is not to “err on the side of hope” as you prefer to. The example is abortion of fetuses that are found to have non-fatal mental or physical defects detected through prenatal testing. For the sake of concreteness, I will focus on Down syndrome, although many other non-fatal birth defects can be successfully detected with prenatal tests nowadays.
For the readers who aren’t familiar with it: Down syndrome is a genetic disorder that manifests as intellectual disabilities, stunted growth, vision and hearing problems, a high risk of early onset Alzheimer’s disease and other problems and symptoms. Because of the intellectual disabilities, most people with Down syndrome require special support (financial, legal, educational, medical); some manage to find a job with a work environment that is suitable for them, but many are not employed (you can google to find more specific statistics; there is some variation in the numbers for different countries). Although there is no cure for Down Syndrome, with proper healthcare, individuals afflicted with it can have a relatively high life expectancy: 50-60 years, and for some people even more. And although this is a bit subjective, I think it’s fair to say that with the right education and care most individuals with Down syndrome can and do have a good quality of life.
Nevertheless, when prenatal tests determine a high probability of Down syndrome in the fetus, the most common decision is to abort: the estimated termination rate for fetuses with Down syndrome is 67% in the US, 77% in France and close to 100% in Denmark and Iceland (see [1]); it is also very common in Israel (see [2]). Note that even though many countries permit abortion only up to a certain gestational age (e.g. 12 weeks), almost all developed countries allow a late termination of pregnancy, even in the third trimester, if fetal abnormalities are detected. This is despite the fact that at that point, the baby is very much a living, sentient life-form and it may well be able to survive outside the uterus.
Moreover, in cases where a baby with Down syndrome was born despite prenatal tests failing to detect any abnormality, parents have successfully sued doctors and hospitals for negligence and medical malpractice. This is known as a “wrongful birth” (see [3]) lawsuit, where the parents allege that they would have terminated the pregnancy had they known they would have a special-needs child. See [4] for a specific example (googling “Down syndrome wrongful birth” turns up many other cases where high damages were awarded to the parents).
Additionally, some jurisdictions (several US states, the Netherlands) also recognize “wrongful life” (see [5]) lawsuits. These are similar to a wrongful birth lawsuit, except that in this case it is the child himself that sues the doctor or hospital for negligence in failing to prevent his birth, usually via a legal guardian. The thesis behind such a legal claim is that it would have been better for the child to not have been born in the first place, because congenital defects have rendered his quality of life very poor; hence the child’s right to sue for damages.
All these developments have drawn some criticism from disability rights groups. They worry that the habitual abortion of fetuses with disabilities like Down syndrome will lead to a society where disabled people are but a minuscule minority and therefore would undermine their efforts for equal rights, greater integration within society and an end to social stigmas against them.
The relevance of all of this to the discussion of hope, the value of human life, suicide prevention, physician-assisted suicide and euthanasia should be obvious. The following assertions are often made by you and other commentators:
1. Human life is sacrosanct; thus, we should always try to prevent a person’s death, regardless of circumstances.
2. Life is a precious gift; it is always better to be alive than not to be, regardless of quality of life.
The way the medical profession, the legal profession and the general public perceive the issues I mentioned suggests that these assertions are highly subjective, if not outright dubious.
If abortion (even at a late pregnancy stage) of babies with Down syndrome is ethical and legal, if wrongful birth and wrongful life lawsuits by parents of and people with Down syndrome are ethical and legal, then it doesn’t take a great leap of faith to accept that physician-assisted suicide for people suffering from painful and chronic, but non-fatal, illnesses is also ethical and is likely to legalized in most countries at some point in the future.
Links:
[1] https://www.cbsnews.com/news/down-syndrome-iceland/
[2] https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/.premium.MAGAZINE-the-abortion-conundrum-how-far-israelis-go-to-ensure-their-babies-are-born-perfect-1.7362524
[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wrongful_birth
[4] https://abcnews.go.com/blogs/health/2012/03/10/parents-get-2-9m-in-down-syndrome-girl-wrongful-birth-suit
[5] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wrongful_life
I have felt increasingly suicidal with time, despite having had interventions from a Psychiatrist, Therapists – have taken the various meds, done the talk therapy, also DBT. I don’t blame the professionals, I blame myself for not realising when still young that if you have mild or moderate depression, you can do a lot to help yourself. Now in my 40s, alone, alienated, facing a future of more loneliness plus poverty, I now understand properly what it is to not have reasons to live any more, and to want to find a way out. If I could find a way of ensuring I didn’t survive an attempt, didn’t distress the person who found me, and most importantly, didn’t destroy the lives of my birth family, I would go ahead. The problem is that there are too many uncertainties about being able to succeed, and ultimately I cannot pass that pain on to my family. So that makes me feel trapped and I am sinking deeper into Hell each day. I have had one hospital admission, it was a waste of time and resources, I was simply used as a guinea pig for various drug treatments, and then discharged. I don’t have faith in the medical model. If there were a place I could go to reset myself, somewhere where I could begin again, get help back into employment whilst receiving support, just a basic ‘haven’, I would take that option instead. I want a second chance, and to use the gifts I was given to help others. But that doesn’t exist, so like many others, it is a case of existing and suffering profoundly.
Some people do commit suicide, and this has surely happened since humans first walked the earth. This is not a treatise on the causes or possible reasons for suicide, but the complexities behind the act have puzzled me for many years. In particular our seeming abhorrence and our obvious dismay, regret, and great sadness that anyone should even contemplate the need to end their life, by whatever means has taxed my understanding and the meaning of my life.
What follows below is my opinion.
I ask the question-why is suicide considered such a bad thing? Now I am not advocating that anyone should commit suicide. I am just trying to pick apart the emotional clutter that accompanies this very personal and private act. The only answers I get are that it is a waste of a (usually) young person’s life; that they were loved; that they had unlimited potential, now never to be realized; that they had a future to live for . . . etc, etc.
This is partially correct but is not a real answer. The person concerned-the person now deceased-obviously had a different view of life. I am not discussing his or her view-I have no idea what that was. I am discussing our view-that of the outsider-the ones left behind.
Why are we “outsiders” (I deliberately use this word because we are “outside” that person’s inner world) affronted because someone considers living-in their current situation-to be so bad, so threatening, so limiting as to be not worthwhile continuing? Are we discomforted because this rejection, this dismissal of all we have striven for (in “our” world), may reflect poorly on us, those left behind, regarding the way we have organized the world? Are we disturbed by the confronting prospect of having to admit that we make mistakes and that the way in which the economy, our legal, welfare, and education systems are set up may actually cause distress, that we are not always fair or just in our dealings? Do we feel guilty that we have developed a financial system that promotes the massive imbalance between the very wealthy and the very poor and the disadvantaged?
We have to recognize that we are all, all, party to the ills of the world. We created them. If we look with even a modicum of insight, we should see in ourselves the cause of these shortcomings and see ourselves reflected in the eyes of the distressed. And we should be dismayed.
Is this why we consider suicide a “bad thing” and are so shocked when it occurs?
It is needful to remember that we, each one of us, have our own experiences of life. These are our own. No one can see the world through our eyes with the same imagery and emotional response. No one can see the world through our eyes with our life experiences and our interpretations of those experiences-these are our own.
So, I ask the question again-why is suicide considered such a bad thing? Obviously for the person concerned the prospect of death is more alluring than continuing living as currently experienced. What is “wrong” with that? It is their choice.
Then, for some to say that only God can decide when or where a person dies is surely a gross over assumption-how do they know? What special insight do they possess? Is it not possible, because (I assume) God gave us free will that God may have already decided to allow a person who wants to die, to die?
Furthermore, to declare (as some authority figures do) that most people who commit suicide suffer from a mental “illness” or disorder is surely wrong. It is also highly presumptuous on the part of the person making such a declaration-how do they ACTUALLY know! This is categorizing a person, who now has no recourse or ability to refute the presumption. This is putting a label on someone. And what about those “outsiders” left behind to live with the event-the family and friends?
Are they to be made to suffer further pain with the stigma provided by so called experts who provide the “knowledge” that their son, daughter, friend, brother, sister “must have been mentally deranged” to have committed such an act. This implies that no “normal” person would ever do such a thing! What about self-sacrifice when there is loss of life? Isn’t this an act of suicide? But if it saves the life of others it is considered “noble”! (“There is no greater love than this, that a man should lay down his life for his friends,” English King James Bible: John 15:13).
Research on completed suicides is notoriously difficult. It is always referring to an historic act-something that has already happened. Police, the coroner’s, autopsy, psychiatric and psychological, and counselling reports are analyzed and carefully combed through to try and establish some reason or motive for the suicide. This is fraught as it is impossible to know what was actually going through a person’s mind at the precise moment they took their own life. At that moment they made a choice. Why? We can never know.
Shall we now look at what suicide actually is? Someone taking his or her own life-right? It seems that the “act” is only considered suicide if it results in the quick death of the person concerned. But what about those who commit suicide in the “long term”? Those who drink or drug themselves to death over a number of years, what about them? They may suffer from abuse, or from unbearable pressures associated with their domestic arrangements or at work. They may determine that the easiest and most “socially acceptable” way of easing this pressure or pain, is to get drunk or to get “stoned” on a regular basis. It may take some time but in possibly 5 or 10 years they will be dead. The emotional (and economic) “cost” of this (“long-term suicide”) far exceeds that of any number of “quick” suicides.
To get back to the “mental illness or disorder” accusation. Disordered from what? What are these people supposed to be disordered from? From “normal”? As far as I can discover, there is no accepted definition of “normal.” Possibly those considered “disordered” react to life’s trials and tribulations differently from those around them. Are they wrong? Or are we “outsiders” just being intolerant and lacking in understanding or compassion? Maybe these people are just eccentric-God knows there are enough odd-ball people in the community! Some behavior may be considered maladaptive or possibly antisocial by “outsiders” but not by the people concerned-otherwise they wouldn’t act the way they do!
Similarly, why should anyone “live” according to another’s expectations?
The Scottish philosopher David Hume (1711-1776) wrote the essay, “Suicide,” wherein he said, “I believe that no man ever threw away Life while it was worth keeping.”
Finally, I give you a quote from the Indian sage Jiddu Krishnamurti (1895-1986), who said, “It is no measure of health to be well adjusted to a profoundly sick society.”
-Jason Robert
[This comment was edited to abide by the site’s Comments Policy. – SF]
Excellent and comprehensive response to the original article. Particularly with regard to those “experts”who state that the choice to end one’s life suggests ill mental health, which as Jason says, adds another layer of pain for bereaved loved ones. I can understand the attempts to dissuade young people to take their own lives..in your 20s, 30s &possibly 40s, there is still time to turn things around, find a partner, have children..all of which provide stability and a purpose. But for those of us who have lived the first half of our lives, and haven’t forged the building blocks of security, familial or financial, or who simply suffer and endure life, perhaps we are simply making a logical and merciful choice. The mental, emotional, spiritual pain is unbearable. When we feel so powerless in so many aspects of our lives, can we not exercise power about how we end those lives?
The claim life is an amazing gift and death is a terrible tragedy is a remarkable claim. The burden of proof is on the person making the claim, not vice versa
What gifts and tragedies are belong to the eye of the beholder.
Many do not see it your way.
History is full of examples of people being too sure of themselves causing enormous problems and harm on many people. When you make an remarkable claim such as life is always a fantastic gift and death is a terrible tragedy, the burden of proof is on the person making the claim not vise verse. Most people position on suicide claim that their judgment is is so superior to someone who is suicidal they should be able to make the choice for them, drug them, and do anything to force their position of life on to them but offer no evidence or proof of their position whatsoever—just feelings. It’s very much like a cult—you want to leave you are out of your mind.
Thank you James.
I think that research on “survivors” of suicide is somewhat biased. It has to be, from the inherent nature of what is being studied. The sample consists only of those people who, for whatever reason, didn’t succeed the first time and didn’t go on to complete a successful attempt. It is not inconceivable that some of those attempts were made as gestures rather than in earnest. And of course the survivors say they regret it; otherwise, would they still be alive? Even if one has another attempt in the works, one has to pay lip service to the idea of “recovery” in order to remain at liberty (for this gives the best chance of future success).
I resent the idea that someone can tell me what my life is worth, or that things will improve as though they have somehow ordained the future. A significant minority of psychiatric patients go through life without substantial improvements. I have had depression on and off (mostly on) for the last 16 years. I’m 27. I don’t remember what it’s like wanting to wake up in the morning. I can’t describe my mental state to someone who’s never been there. They probably wouldn’t believe me, just as I have difficulty believing the mainstream narrative that depression is a temporary problem. I do not understand why I must drag myself through the next 70 years on a cocktail of psychotropic substances. Who is supposed to benefit?
Stella,
Very good point on the biased nature of survivor statements.
I think you have your answer on “Who is supposed to benefit?” right there. The benefactor is the medical industry. Specifically pharmaceuticals and the mental health branch of medicine. A person with ongoing and unending suffering is just good business to them. I expect they will not give up this is a significant advantage over other medical practices easily, in fact I expect the others may attempt to adopt it. Think of how much money cancer doctors could make if they could force patients to continue treatment against their will, just as an example.
I expect someone will bring up the question of religious objection, often in religions human suffering is a form of penance so perhaps they either feel they can pass judgement that it is deserved or hope in some way that your suffering benefits them spiritually.
You could alternatively look at it from a historical perspective since at various times the human race went through significant downturns in population. At those times it would have made cultural and biological sense to attempt to force people to live longer for the good of the society or species, depending on your preferred basis for subverting an individuals free will. In all honesty, this is the one I find personally least objectionable however it is also no longer relevant given the current human population.
Chad,
Sadly, one of the problems we face in suicide prevention is that many mental health professionals will not treat suicidal people. They are frightened of the risks, liability, and extra time demands that can occur. So I don’t think that can be seen as a motivation for protecting people who are at imminent risk for suicide.
I think the person themselves going thru the situation of considering suicide in hindsight can have accurate opinions of themselves of whether they were “mentally deranged.” If we are to consider there are people considering suicide claiming they are NOT “mentally deranged” are possibly correct; then there is definitely need to consider that people who considered suicide who in hindsight say they were “mentally deranged” are correct. I don’t say “possibly correct” because I know of no example of someone truly believing in hindsight that oneself was “mentally deranged” when indeed oneself was not. The wrestler known as “Hulk Hogan” at least once almost accidentally committed suicide because he was not in his right mind. He was mulling over the misery of his recent divorce at the time while sitting in his bathroom when he suddenly realized he was holding a loaded gun and knocking against his teeth! He was appalled and stopped as soon as he noticed. He has no memory of getting the gun! He was not conscious of any want to kill himself! Sometimes people most definitely ARE suffering a mental illness that is causing the action of suicide. It’s wrong to say that NEVER happens.
It’s wrong to assume that it must be the case that someone who is suicidal is in a state of derangement. They should at least be given the chance to lay out their thinking on the subject, and have that scrutinised for delusion or signs that they irrational. Not have it presumed before they’ve even had the chance to speak on their own behalf that they must be “deranged” because no sane person would ever commit suicide. If you allow assisted suicide but require a waiting period with counselling, then you give people who would otherwise commit suicide in a rash frame of mind the chance to cool down and possibly see things differently, then choose to live. When they might otherwise be dead without having even tried to reach out for help.
I’ve been suicidal most of my life and was prevented from committing suicide once in my life. I would be willing to go up against anyone to lay out my philosophical views and have them rigorously examined for evidence of delusion or unjustified bias. Philosophically, it basically boils down to the fact that I did not yearn for life before I was born, and as there is no compelling evidence to suppose that consciousness can survive bodily death, I cannot see how it would be possible that I could yearn for life once I am dead either.
And I would argue that most people live lives that are perhaps not filled with unbearable suffering, but in which they are constantly working towards prevention and relief of suffering and if they lapse in that for a brief period, or even just get unlucky, terrible and sustained suffering can be the consequence.
[This comment was edited to abide by the Comments Policy. – SF]
I agree with you that, “It’s wrong to assume that it must be the case that someone who is suicidal is in a state of derangement.” Maybe that is the case, but I don’t think it is. And, unless it were ever proven to be true (not gonna happen) it’s definitely WRONG to assume anyone who is suicidal is deranged.
Also I agree with you that, “They should at least be given the chance to lay out their thinking on the subject, and have that scrutinised for delusion or signs that they irrational. Not have it presumed before they’ve even had the chance to speak on their own behalf that they must be “deranged” because no sane person would ever commit suicide.”
Thank you for well explaining this. I agree with you that it’s wrong to assume no sane person would commit suicide. And, I think you also agree that it’s wrong to believe that no insane person would commit suicide and it’s a good thing to offer such a person a measure of protection.
Thank you for your further details, too.
I am 39 now, but for 35 of them I could only remember the bad. And i hated my life and there was nobody there to talk to. I shot myself in the head, only 3 feet from my baby mamas face. If i had anyone who cared at all for me ii might not have done it. Being a meth addict and alcoholic i have fought so hard. Harder than anyone cares to hear. As i was coming to, the whitest light was shining and i saw what i believe to have been an angel glowing in the light. She had a long robe to the ankles and a halo on her head. And the space between us spread and my family was all right there. And i was alive! I was confused for long time. Trying to figure out why i am alive and not the good kids. I wish i knew what it was for?
Im 57 years old maybe the health profession should have recognised whats going on im mentally incapable of a happy memory so every day is depressing this is nothing new its happened all my life and i honestly mean since i was about 5 years old ive considered suicide me staying alive is putting me through Hell or Purgatory take your choice if you really want to help people like me do studies of kids find a way to sift through and help
I’ve been pondering my death for a while and like my conclusion of: Why cant I decide the how and when?
People who are in short term pain may regret thier failed attempts, but I have a date, a time and a how.. thought it out carefully and have told people.