A Surprisingly Balanced Pro-life Take on The NYT Story

[Meretlein]

I clicked on this expecting to roll my eyes but was pleasantly surprised that it was far more even handed than I was expecting.

The video criticizes the reporters for ignoring the fact that data does not link this site to an increase in suicides nationwide, saying that it possibly has a protective effect. It mentions how reporters left out certain details in order to sell a more dramatic story. It concedes that many are drawn to SS due to being censored on other forums and how the specter of involuntary commitment pushes people to SS. Most importantly they talked about the dismal state of mental health care being ignored by journalists and how censorship doesn't stop bad things from happening.


It was quite insightful to see a pro-life critique of the NYT story.

 

[Lostkitten1]

I would bet half my SN that this doesn't get reported by the media. Sensational, vaguely inaccurate stories yes, facts no. Still, at least we know some people out there recognise the good we do

 

[demuic]

It is refreshing to see "experts" who are able to see through the deceptive and manipulative storytelling prevailing the external, agenda-driven narratives surrounding SS.

I watched the video. Some very good points here. I like that they make a point that censorship is not helpful. I also found it interesting the point that is made about how the conventional wisdom about safe reporting guidelines for news relating to suicide is pretty much completely bunk, and actually seem to do the opposite of what they're intended to do (i.e. decrease the "risk" of suicide.) I also liked the not so subtle digs at the DSM (Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders).

Ultimately most efforts to "protect people from themselves" end up violating personal autonomy and cause harm themselves far more than they do any protecting or helping. As we are all aware it is not accurate to say that SS is something that will only or always lead to someone killing themselves in the same way it is not accurate to say that watching some TV show where someone kills themself will lead to their suicide. (And even if it did, these things should still be allowed to exist.)

"The narrative is more important than the facts." I couldn't have said it better... Why didn't the NYT do a story on how shitty mental health care is or how most health care professionals aren't equipped to deal with suicide? (To paraphrase what was said in the video.) Because that's not a story that sells. That's boring and mundane and not actionable for the average media witch hunt. "SCARY SUICIDE WEBSITE, CHILDREN PUSHED TO KILLING THEMSELVES WITH CHEMICAL FROM POPULAR ONLINE RETAILER" is, though. Now you have a clear target and clear goal, to shut this place down, and pat yourself on the back for feeling like you're a good person because you got rid of something because you couldn't stop to try and understand it. It feeds into people's base instincts and emotions and bypasses logic and reasoning.

Social safety nets and healthcare are far more important and effective to preventing suicide than banning or censoring details or methods or websites. The involuntary commitment of the suicidal definitely hurts more people than it helps. But that is rarely talked about, because that would prevent grand sweeping changes to the structure of how suicidal intent is dealt with that people don't want to face, because it isn't an easy conversation with easy answers. It makes people uncomfortable. So suicide gets swept under the rug, only pulled out from the shadows when ire and rage is directed toward it (in the case of this website). Silencing people doesn't help.

Unfortunately unless people are willing to enact some real social, societal and structural changes, we will continue in this sad state we're in.

 

[Pallf]

Social safety nets and healthcare are far more important and effective to preventing suicide than banning or censoring details or methods or websites.

Yeah but you're forgetting that improving societal issues is hard and boring and takes forever. Much better to just shut down a website and pat yourself on the back.
If they talk about it as a societal issue then they have to bring up the cost of fixing it. As empathetic as people are, that all goes out the window when it comes to taxes and their wallet. Which is why I'd rather they give a ball park estimate on how much it would cost each taxpayer to help fund a more mentally healthy society and watch them balk at it, or just leave us alone. Would prefer the former but will definitely take the latter

 

[Meretlein]

It is refreshing to see "experts" who are able to see through the deceptive and manipulative storytelling prevailing the external, agenda-driven narratives surrounding SS.

I watched the video. Some very good points here. I like that they make a point that censorship is not helpful. I also found it interesting the point that is made about how the conventional wisdom about safe reporting guidelines for news relating to suicide is pretty much completely bunk, and actually seem to do the opposite of what they're intended to do (i.e. decrease the "risk" of suicide.) I also liked the not so subtle digs at the DSM (Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders).

Ultimately most efforts to "protect people from themselves" end up violating personal autonomy and cause harm themselves far more than they do any protecting or helping. As we are all aware it is not accurate to say that SS is something that will only or always lead to someone killing themselves in the same way it is not accurate to say that watching some TV show where someone kills themself will lead to their suicide. (And even if it did, these things should still be allowed to exist.)

"The narrative is more important than the facts." I couldn't have said it better... Why didn't the NYT do a story on how shitty mental health care is or how most health care professionals aren't equipped to deal with suicide? (To paraphrase what was said in the video.) Because that's not a story that sells. That's boring and mundane and not actionable for the average media witch hunt. "SCARY SUICIDE WEBSITE, CHILDREN PUSHED TO KILLING THEMSELVES WITH CHEMICAL FROM POPULAR ONLINE RETAILER" is, though. Now you have a clear target and clear goal, to shut this place down, and pat yourself on the back for feeling like you're a good person because you got rid of something because you couldn't stop to try and understand it. It feeds into people's base instincts and emotions and bypasses logic and reasoning.

Social safety nets and healthcare are far more important and effective to preventing suicide than banning or censoring details or methods or websites. The involuntary commitment of the suicidal definitely hurts more people than it helps. But that is rarely talked about, because that would prevent grand sweeping changes to the structure of how suicidal intent is dealt with that people don't want to face, because it isn't an easy conversation with easy answers. It makes people uncomfortable. So suicide gets swept under the rug, only pulled out from the shadows when ire and rage is directed toward it (in the case of this website). Silencing people doesn't help.

Unfortunately unless people are willing to enact some real social, societal and structural changes, we will continue in this sad state we're in.

Thank you for taking the time to write this post. It is spot on.

If Megan Twohey and Gabriel Dance continuing reporting on this site, I hope they also use their influence to draw attention to the egregious abuse of psychiatric sufferers by the medical system. One of many is psychiatric boarding in which patients can be held for weeks on end.

Courts, Plaintiff Attorneys Scrutinizing ED Boarding of Psychiatric…

Patients visit emergency departments (EDs) with acute psychiatric illnesses that need to be addressed. The problem is that hospitals may not be providing those services on an outpatient or inpatient basis. If the ED psychiatric patient requires inpatient services, there may be nowhere available to…

www.reliasmedia.com

https://www.teamhealth.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/09/white-paper-em-psychiatric-boarding-in-the-ed.pdf

Not to mention how the threat of involuntary commitment stops suicidal people from confiding in others and leads to increased suicidal risk when they experience this "treatment". Studies for these claims are in this post- https://sanctioned-suicide.net/threads/anyone-seen-this-ss-in-the-news.79083/page-3#post-1415946

 

[Crazy4u]

I came back to this thread because I realized the people discussing the subject were not your average panel. One of them is a mental health professional and part of a suicide prevention organization. It is so refreshing to see how NYT story backfired on the so called forced lifers.

 

[noname223]

I clicked on this expecting to roll my eyes but was pleasantly surprised that it was far more even handed than I was expecting.

The video criticizes the reporters for ignoring the fact that data does not link this site to an increase in suicides nationwide, saying that it possibly has a protective effect. It mentions how reporters left out certain details in order to sell a more dramatic story. It concedes that many are drawn to SS due to being censored on other forums and how the specter of involuntary commitment pushes people to SS. Most importantly they talked about the dismal state of mental health care being ignored by journalists and how censorship doesn't stop bad things from happening.


It was quite insightful to see a pro-life critique of the NYT story.

Thanks for sharing that. I have no time to watch it. Are these journalists or scientists? Maybe it is split.
As I showed with the scientifical articles that I translated and posted: The view of science on suicide forums is way more balanced and nuanced than that what the NYT writes. I am glad other people are acknowledging that too.

I came back to this thread because I realized the people discussing the subject were not your average panel. One of them is a mental health professional and part of a suicide prevention organization. It is so refreshing to see how NYT story backfired on the so called forced lifers.
View attachment 86536

Sorry but this is extreme censorship. Just because you are not pleased by the result of science this does not give you the right to suppress it. This clearly shows they are irrational and would like to censor everything that is suicide related. I am sure this tweet will not be viewed in their favor. It proves these people are not guiding by reason rather revenge and scapegoating this forum.

If they were the rulers all they would allow is anti-choice arguments. This is authoritarian. This is a good proof why the freedom of speech is so important. Because some fanatics would use the censorship for their advantage. Allowing in such ethical questions only one point of view is dangerous. When the freedom of science is in danger the society is aswell.

 

[FinalPeace]

I was poking around the internet looking at these anti-SS groups and it looks like they dont have much to stand on but emotions of anger and grief.

Anyone who's educated and using data can refute all of the claims from these groups. It's pretty funny that this lady Catherine is trying to tell a PhD clinical psychologist that he doesn't know what he's talking about regarding suicide and he needs to get educated after he didnt agree with her take on SS.











These responses from him are my favorite:

 

[Foresight]

Dr. Andrews is coming through with integrity.

I actually get secondhand embarrassment from these people. They just don't understand much at all.

 

[WrongPlaceWrongTime]

Fixers: "Your data is flawed because it doesn't fit my 'SS bad' narrative. My feelings matter more than your facts"

 

[Meretlein]

I was poking around the internet looking at these anti-SS groups and it looks like they dont have much to stand on but emotions of anger and grief.

Anyone who's educated and using data can refute all of the claims from these groups. It's pretty funny that this lady Catherine is trying to tell a PhD clinical psychologist that he doesn't know what he's talking about regarding suicide and he needs to get educated after he didnt agree with her take on SS.











These responses from him are my favorite:

It is understandable that they would have that reaction. Bart is speaking in terms of millions of people while they are focused on their lost children. Most people would do the same if they were in that position.

Of course, by focusing on their children, they ignore the people who found peace in knowing that they could end their lives at any time (things tend to be significantly less painful when they are voluntary) and people who found community and connection and that morale boost made them decide to live. This is what I imagine Bart is talking about when he says the site may have a protective effect and is not linked to a massive increase in suicides nationwide.

While more balanced than most takes on this website, this perspective discounts the value that those get when they are able to exercise their autonomy at the most fundamental level and freely decide whether they want to exist or not. Though you can't expect those who think life should be obligatory, unless you plead your suffering to a higher authority to see that.

 

[Al Cappella]

One other glaring problem that's not unique to this issue—it's everywhere—is emotional reasoning swaying factual evidence. There simply is no evidence to support banning sites like this, in fact it probably argues the opposite.

 

[lostundead]

It was satisfying to see Bart slash the NYT (s)hitpiece. However, as usual, they only see suicidality as a temporary emotional crisis that's solvable with the right treatment, which was a bit dissappointong considering how comparatively open-minded they seem to be. This idea that we can reach a near 0 suicide rate is just utopic and delusional and leaves open the door for authoritarian measurements like locking people up and/or banning peacful methos.

 

[Meretlein]

It was satisfying to see Bart slash the NYT (s)hitpiece. However, as usual, they only see suicidality as a temporary emotional crisis that's solvable with the right treatment, which was a bit dissappointong considering how comparatively open-minded they seem to be. This idea that we can reach a near 0 suicide rate is just utopic and delusional and leaves open the door for authoritarian measurements like locking people up and/or banning peacful methos.

Bart backtracked a little bit, saying that the site's effect is unknown.

What Bart cannot backtrack on is the fact that this site has helped many members and they say so. He implores people to ask what pushes members to join this site on both the video and Twitter. Members and data suggest it is the specter of involuntary commitment. Bart even goes as far as saying, "it kills more people than it helps." Of course, claims that the broken state of mental healthcare and the abusive and violating way of treating suicidal people will be fixed have been made since the dawn of psychiatry itself. The claim has proven itself to be nothing more than meaningless placation.

"Come back, baby. It will be different this time."

- Someone who never changes

I cannot stress this enough to pro-lifers. There are people who do not want to be told that they have an obligation to live and put up with the harms and costs of living. Many of us find that type of suicide prevention to be cloyingly suffocating.

 

[dreadpirateroberts69]

There are people who do not want to be told that they have an obligation to live and put up with the harms and costs of living. Many of us find that type of suicide prevention to be cloyingly suffocating.

Very well said. It IS suffocating. I figure those who think involuntary commitment and the like actually help people have never been suicidal themselves. Then there are those who HAVE been suicidal, but got better, and therefore assume that because they got better it will get better for everyone, which is equally idiotic

 

[U. A.]

Wow, I started watching this just to see what the deal would be and ended up watching the whole thing. Very compelling, interesting and good information - and to hear people in the clinical field holding both the article and typical practices around suicide accountable for their failings. More of this ought to be in the public eye, but as they say in this very video, it's all about selling the story...

Also liked the shoutout to Craig Bryan whose recent book I just started reading, called Rethinking Suicide. Have a thread about it covering the content and linking to an interview with him for anyone interested but not immediately able to access.

 

[makethepainstop]

Shame there is not some way to wreak havoc, if not vengeance on those fools, retards, and idiots who think this forum is evil. They always do things to annoy, provoke, and harass the suicidal. Then they get their feel good that they have ended a suicide.
There should be no feel-good feelings, for making people live and continue to suffer needlessly. Thanks a lot, pro-life guys for prolonging our suffering! GOD, I hate pro-life idiots.

 

[Fadeawaaaay]

The other issue is simply free speech. Should the government really be censoring conversations among adults on suicide or any other topic?