I Asked a Psychologist About the Right to Die : Here’s What Happened!

[Tamila_sev]

I just called a psychological support hotline to talk about the idea of creating an organization for the right to die by choice, not because of depression, illness, or old age, but as a personal, lucid decision.


The psychologist refused to answer me and seemed embarrassed. Maybe it was because I sounded determined, maybe because she realized her own limits.

I don't accept the rules of this world, or all the constraints imposed on us from birth. I'm not sick. I'm not lost. I simply consider ending one's own life to be the ultimate form of freedom.


This isn't about promoting suicide. It's about ending the moral monopoly on life and death!
It's about breaking the automatic assumption that wanting to die = something is wrong with you.


I think it's time to build a global movement with local branchs, a space where young and old, rich and poor, marginalized people, philosophers, and those weary of psychiatry can openly talk about this taboo.
A place where everyone can make the best choice for themselves, without fear of judgment, pathologization, or moralizing. Where these people could also choose to believe in """the beauty of life""" while fully realizing they have the right to end it.



MANIFESTO :

It means recognizing that suicide is a legitimate option and an absolute right, without promoting it.

It means opposing the idea that the right to die belongs only to the elderly or the physically suffering.

It means rejecting the manipulation and guilt imposed by family, society, psychologists, and psychiatrists.

It means ending the blackmail that says life is inherently good and must be preserved at all costs.

It means demanding the right for every individual to end their life with painless methods.

It means believing that every human being must take personal responsibility by making an irreversible choice, fully aware of its consequences.

It means granting the right, just as we allow ending the life of a fetus or an animal, to choose one's own end of life.

It means giving people the possibility to consult mental health professionals, and if the desire to die persists, granting them the right to follow through.


It means letting people refuse to live in a world full of suffering, inequalities, competition, disease, injustice, and greed.

It means stopping the lie that life is a quest for happiness that some never knew.

It means giving the right to those who see life as absurd to take control of something they never chose: their existence.


If this resonates with anyone, let's start talking. I live in France, and you?

 

[oatmeal.n]

The only reason I can imagine someone to be afraid of this pure selfishness. If you're forced into life, live until your brain is developed, and decide to die, why should it matter? Can't you at least give them the choice to death after having no choice of non-living?

Good luck! I hope this goes well for you.

 

[bankai]

I wish one country somewhere allowed this without any strings attached. It would be easy for people to travel there and do it.

I believe it will happen at one point of time. But not anytime soon. And also the likelihood of something like that getting shut down eventually is also high.

 

[Dejected 55]

I wish one country somewhere allowed this without any strings attached. It would be easy for people to travel there and do it.

I believe it will happen at one point of time. But not anytime soon. And also the likelihood of something like that getting shut down eventually is also high.

That's not how society works though... IF a country legalized and supported right-to-die for any reason... and allowed people to immigrate there and commit suicide. You can bet it doesn't take more than a day for the larger countries of the world to start applying pressure be it political or economic to get them to stop that policy. No large nation would allow its citizens to leave to go to a place and kill themselves.

You see it happen with other things, this would be no different. Large countries would pressure them to change, then threaten them to change, then go to war over it. And this is the kind of thing that would actually unite the US/Russia for instance as neither would want their able-bodied-taxable humans to leave and end their life somewhere else. China and India would be tougher sells, especially India with its overcrowding, but even those countries would see the writing on the wall of what they stand to lose if they just allowed another country to "take" people from them in large chunks.

And the large countries would not be motivated to follow suit because they don't want to lose the bodies... so their only choice would be to squash the smaller country before it catches on.

 

[bankai]

That's not how society works though... IF a country legalized and supported right-to-die for any reason... and allowed people to immigrate there and commit suicide. You can bet it doesn't take more than a day for the larger countries of the world to start applying pressure be it political or economic to get them to stop that policy. No large nation would allow its citizens to leave to go to a place and kill themselves.

You see it happen with other things, this would be no different. Large countries would pressure them to change, then threaten them to change, then go to war over it. And this is the kind of thing that would actually unite the US/Russia for instance as neither would want their able-bodied-taxable humans to leave and end their life somewhere else. China and India would be tougher sells, especially India with its overcrowding, but even those countries would see the writing on the wall of what they stand to lose if they just allowed another country to "take" people from them in large chunks.

And the large countries would not be motivated to follow suit because they don't want to lose the bodies... so their only choice would be to squash the smaller country before it catches on.

There are rogue countries who don't bow down much to the others like NK and Iran.

But like I said, it's mostly just wishful thinking.And I did say that it will get shut down. Yeah, it'll probably be because of applied sanctions and international pressure but also protesting.

 

[Dejected 55]

There are rogue countries who don't bow down much to the others like NK and Iran.

But like I said, it's mostly just wishful thinking.And I did say that it will get shut down. Yeah, it'll probably be because of applied sanctions and international pressure but also protesting.

Depends on what you mean by "bow down" and also... North Korea and Iran have Russian backing. As long as a small country has backing from a large country they get some leeway.

But if, randomly, a small country without the direct backing of the US, Russia, or China... if that country said "suicide is legal in our country for any reason and we welcome citizens of the world from any country to come here if you want to die." Watch just how fast the big countries close borders and trade and financial aid to that small country. You'd see the major powers of the world unite in a hurry to force that small country to stop. They couldn't force the country to not allow suicide but they absolutely would work hard to stop an exodus of citizens of the world from fleeing to that small country.

It's not right... but it is how the world and power brokers work.

 

[bankai]

They couldn't force the country to not allow suicide but they absolutely would work hard to stop an exodus of citizens of the world from fleeing to that small country.

My guess is they will probably blacklist that particular place completely from air travel for tourists.Only if you could prove you have a legitimate reason to visit, like for business or some sort of official purpose, I guess they would let you go.

 

[Dejected 55]

My guess is they will probably blacklist that particular place completely from air travel for tourists.Only if you could prove you have a legitimate reason to visit, like for business or some sort of official purpose, I guess they would let you go.

I think that would be a wrong guess. It wouldn't be worth the risk for the big countries to take the chance. They just would refuse to let you travel there. You'd have to sneak there somehow and hope your country didn't catch-on before you arrived. Governments in the world can be inefficient and ham-handed and incompetent... but they invariably get the oppressive stuff right. They can't help you cross the street safely, but if they see you as a threat to the country's way of running business? They will shut that shit down in a hurry.

 

[Kali_Yuga13]

I like some of your sentiments however I disagree on some points.

An "international organization" would by nature of organized human efforts lean toward promotional. What are we asking for here, a "Ministry of Suicide? Surely that would never be abused! :D

This site itself (pulling from former and current similar niche movements) is the closest thing and faces organized efforts to suppress it due to perceived promotion.

Asking a governing body to "grant" rights is a losing proposition as it comes from the position of supplicant. Outside of lofty theorizing, rights are what a person or group can secure for themselves by negotiation, legislation, force and by hook or crook if need be.

ending one's own life to be the ultimate form of freedom.

It is the ultimate freedom precisely because it's not something to be "granted". Despite threats of eternal damnation or being an unenforceable felony in some countries, people find a way to ctb and that will not change.

It sounds like you are wanting these things:

• Ease of access to painless methods
• Decriminalization of assisted suicide including for people of sound heath and mind
• A modernized social fabric where suicide not only accepted but even embraced to a certain extent with zero shame.

I believe the third point is nearly impossible and any society that were to achieve something near that would cascade toward being equally homicidal. The human aversion to suicide for the most part cannot even be blamed on the Abrahamic religions as cultures that held some acceptance for suicide in their ethos did so under narrow parameters of dishonor, mental anguish, evasion of capture etc. Japan, Greece, American Indians as some examples.

Even our current ages hotpoint around gender affirming care frames it a suicide preventative and that's from the cold scientific viewpoint which leans toward atheism.

The suicidal person contemplates an act that heathy human nature considers abhorrent independent of culture, religion or lack thereof.

So what is the healthy way? I don't know. I think this site is pretty heathy actually. Being able to talk about methods, recovery, challenges, practicalities or simply vent or social with like minded without fear of reprisal.

I don't think the suicide of a healthy young adults will ever be palatable to society. Humans are social animals and rely comparison to place themselves in the social order. It's either "gone too soon" or "good riddance" based on comparative reasoning.

But I agree, the taboo has gone too far and it's largely driven over fear of legal repercussions over "not having done enough or told someone". Decriminalization of assistance is probably the happiest medium and if that happens then there will be more social chatter which would reflect in the social fabric in the ways I think you desire in terms of less stigma while not blatant endorsement.

It sort of like weed legalization. Many people are now concluding that decriminalization would have been the better route in terms of social effect as overt legalization has caused other problems.

 

[Celerity]

I just called a psychological support hotline to talk about the idea of creating an organization for the right to die by choice, not because of depression, illness, or old age, but as a personal, lucid decision.


The psychologist refused to answer me and seemed embarrassed. Maybe it was because I sounded determined, maybe because she realized her own limits.

I don't accept the rules of this world, or all the constraints imposed on us from birth. I'm not sick. I'm not lost. I simply consider ending one's own life to be the ultimate form of freedom.


This isn't about promoting suicide. It's about ending the moral monopoly on life and death!
It's about breaking the automatic assumption that wanting to die = something is wrong with you.


I think it's time to build a global movement with local branchs, a space where young and old, rich and poor, marginalized people, philosophers, and those weary of psychiatry can openly talk about this taboo.
A place where everyone can make the best choice for themselves, without fear of judgment, pathologization, or moralizing. Where these people could also choose to believe in """the beauty of life""" while fully realizing they have the right to end it.



MANIFESTO :

It means recognizing that suicide is a legitimate option and an absolute right, without promoting it.

It means opposing the idea that the right to die belongs only to the elderly or the physically suffering.

It means rejecting the manipulation and guilt imposed by family, society, psychologists, and psychiatrists.

It means ending the blackmail that says life is inherently good and must be preserved at all costs.

It means demanding the right for every individual to end their life with painless methods.

It means believing that every human being must take personal responsibility by making an irreversible choice, fully aware of its consequences.

It means granting the right, just as we allow ending the life of a fetus or an animal, to choose one's own end of life.

It means giving people the possibility to consult mental health professionals, and if the desire to die persists, granting them the right to follow through.


It means letting people refuse to live in a world full of suffering, inequalities, competition, disease, injustice, and greed.

It means stopping the lie that life is a quest for happiness that some never knew.

It means giving the right to those who see life as absurd to take control of something they never chose: their existence.


If this resonates with anyone, let's start talking. I live in France, and you?

That was very brave of you. I wouldn't have had the nerve.

I'm not surprised by the psychiatrist's response, of course, as I'm sure you are not either. Even if liability were not an issue, they are too well-trained to view their patients as helpless and undeserving of autonomy.

 

[Tamila_sev]

I think the goal isn't just for one country to legalize this, like we've seen with euthanasia.
In fact, many countries rely on medical tourism to outsource the responsibility letting individuals travel abroad for end-of-life options without having to change their own laws.
But this avoids the real conversation. It pushes the issue out of sight, instead of addressing it openly and universally.


A full legal framework for voluntary suicide, accessible to anyone, regardless of age or illness — will take years to even be considered seriously. Maybe it will never happen.


But that's not the point (not yet).


The first and most urgent step is to create a global conversation and a cultural shift, with activists and advocates on every continent, anonymous or not.
To push this debate into public discourse, into media, into everyday life.
Just like with other major social changes in history, it starts by breaking the silence and confronting the taboo.


And when that conversation finally begins, it will force people to ask themselves something uncomfortable i.e "What is so unbearable in this world that people are demanding the right to die?"

And the answer will hit hard: it's the system itself: the pressures, the isolation, the exploitation, the inequality, the absurdity. The fact that some of us would rather contemplate ending ourselves than keep tolerating this world should be the wake-up call. This isn't just about death. It's about reclaiming freedom, and about deciding what kind of life is truly worth living and on whose terms.

By fighting for the freedom to choose suicide, we're also fighting for a world where, if someone is truly destined to live, they can live in a society that guarantees equity and well-being.

But we should be brave! Rather than thinking of this as an intimate topic, we need to make it collective and political, like other important political issues. We need to fight.

 

[PI3.14]

I wish one country somewhere allowed this without any strings attached. It would be easy for people to travel there and do it.

I believe it will happen at one point of time. But not anytime soon. And also the likelihood of something like that getting shut down eventually is also high.

No county will allow this. Think about it, who is more likely to want to CTB in society? It's the lower class, the people who have it difficult in life.

Countries however need these people, they provide cheap labor. They need minimum wage workers. That's why they will never implement such a thing, they fear losing this class of people.

 

[Tamila_sev]

Hey, Thank you for your thoughtful response @Kali_Yuga13! . I'd like to offer some counterpoints to deepen the discussion.


About the risk of abuses within an international organization:
Yes, abuses can happen anywhere, but with a clear, transparent charter and strict coordination, these risks can be minimized. The goal isn't to create a "Ministry of Suicide" but to establish ethical frameworks protecting individuals' rights without exploitation the best we can do!


About rights being built on what already exists rather than just granted:
What we're asking for isn't something brand new, but a formalization and extension of what many individuals and underground groups already do clandestinely. Bringing it into the open enables better safety, support, and respect for personal choices.


About suicide as the ultimate form of freedom:
Suicide is a form of ultimate freedom only if it can be done without pain and suffering. Yet, in today's world, painless methods have largely been removed from public access. So far, dying without pain is not a recognized right, though it should be considered one, just like any procedure, it should be accessible and humane.


About violence and the reality of life:
You mention that a society embracing suicide might become homicidal, but violence is already part of life: despite laws, there are murders, accidents, cannibalism, diseases, and many forms of harm. If violence exists in many forms, why deny individuals the right to end their suffering by their own choice? Suicide is a form of violence, absolutely. But so is much of life, and the key is how we accept and manage it. Beyond that, there are other violences considered "normal" and accepted without question: people dying of hunger, enslaved by work just to earn money, the confiscation of natural food resources to be stored and sold in supermarkets : food that is a natural right for ALL! You might say people have to compete or steal to get that food, but I say this is simply not how human life should be. Consider also the violence of people losing their homes to debt collectors, or those who end their lives not from a lack of love for life but because of unemployment, poverty, or despair. Violence coexists with joy and abundance; it's part of the balance of life. Suicide is one of the options that can be choosed and the ongoing systemic violence and injustice should be more looked at.

:)


About suicide as a moral judgment:
The idea that suicide is an "abomination by healthy human nature" is a moral and cultural interpretation, largely shaped by religion and societal norms. At its core, suicide is a neutral fact i.e human beings ending their own lives. Look at how societal views on abortion have evolved (for the progressist people): perceptions can change when societies rethink long-held moral frameworks.


About public discussion versus underground forums:
Currently, forums discussing suicide openly remain underground and marginalized. Suicide is a critical question that deserves public debate, not relegation to hidden spaces. Only through open dialogue can stigma be reduced and policies evolve.


Finally, about acceptance of suicide among healthy young adults:
Saying "it will never be accepted" is a moral judgment on what should be a personal freedom. This needs to be questioned, even if it shocks.
I resonate with anti-natalist arguments, and I see the right to die as a natural extension of those ideas. It questions how society views children as inherently indebted to their parents, despite having never asked to be born. A child is an individual in their own right. (I see things radically) They do not owe their family anything just because of blood ties. Outside of any social construct, they have the right to detach from their family, the right to "betray" them, and the right to disappoint them, even by choosing suicide.


Why interpret such a deeply personal decision as a personal offense?
Decriminalizing assisted suicide already shifts society toward acceptance, so why maintain hypocrisy? Why allow only healthcare professionals to monopolize this conversation when it is a fundamental, widespread human issue? Psychiatric approaches often assume suicidal individuals lack discernment, but people fully understand the irreversible nature of the act. People need individual reponsability. Facing the possibility of death can even trigger an instinct for life.

 

[matt.7890]

I just called a psychological support hotline to talk about the idea of creating an organization for the right to die by choice, not because of depression, illness, or old age, but as a personal, lucid decision.


The psychologist refused to answer me and seemed embarrassed. Maybe it was because I sounded determined, maybe because she realized her own limits.

I don't accept the rules of this world, or all the constraints imposed on us from birth. I'm not sick. I'm not lost. I simply consider ending one's own life to be the ultimate form of freedom.


This isn't about promoting suicide. It's about ending the moral monopoly on life and death!
It's about breaking the automatic assumption that wanting to die = something is wrong with you.


I think it's time to build a global movement with local branchs, a space where young and old, rich and poor, marginalized people, philosophers, and those weary of psychiatry can openly talk about this taboo.
A place where everyone can make the best choice for themselves, without fear of judgment, pathologization, or moralizing. Where these people could also choose to believe in """the beauty of life""" while fully realizing they have the right to end it.



MANIFESTO :

It means recognizing that suicide is a legitimate option and an absolute right, without promoting it.

It means opposing the idea that the right to die belongs only to the elderly or the physically suffering.

It means rejecting the manipulation and guilt imposed by family, society, psychologists, and psychiatrists.

It means ending the blackmail that says life is inherently good and must be preserved at all costs.

It means demanding the right for every individual to end their life with painless methods.

It means believing that every human being must take personal responsibility by making an irreversible choice, fully aware of its consequences.

It means granting the right, just as we allow ending the life of a fetus or an animal, to choose one's own end of life.

It means giving people the possibility to consult mental health professionals, and if the desire to die persists, granting them the right to follow through.


It means letting people refuse to live in a world full of suffering, inequalities, competition, disease, injustice, and greed.

It means stopping the lie that life is a quest for happiness that some never knew.

It means giving the right to those who see life as absurd to take control of something they never chose: their existence.


If this resonates with anyone, let's start talking. I live in France, and you?

That's a great thread actually! I mentioned something similar on this forum (not that in-depth tho). Tbh If I had another life where I am healthy and knowing what I know now, I would prehaps focus all my efforts and work solely to establish such an environment / law ideally across the world. It is such a taboo and avoided / underdeveloped area and so critical in my view. And for almost everyone suicidal thoughts / conversations are equal with having some mental condition or disease and must be treated.

It will give people so much freedom and breath. I think many would be willing to take more risk in life in a good way, ending up having more successful and fulfilled life at the end. And I do not necessarily think that it would be abused.. at the end many people still have fear of death and unknown. And making it easy and accessible might also result in that someone might actually try one more time for example or delay it for a while.

I am from Poland and so many older people have so miserable lives here.. Living in the extreme poverty and often alone with serious health issues.. And as you mentioned, animals have better rights than humans in this regard.

 

[ididnotconsent]

Exactly. If life is a gift but you can't willingly give it away, then it's not a gift, it's an imposition.

 

[kopebaldy]

Your life, the only thing you're born with, the only thing you have that's truly yours, isn't for you to decide.

Sick fucking joke.

 

[Celerity]

Your life, the only thing you're born with, the only thing you have that's truly yours, isn't for you to decide.

Sick fucking joke.

That's a great way to put it.

 

[Kali_Yuga13]

@Tamila_sev -
Re a 'Ministry of Suicide - I'm not going by what could or should the ideal, I'm going by history and how complex organizational systems tend to evolve toward bureaucracy. That's not to say nothing should be attempted but even with MAiD in Canada and some other org in the UK, some of the advertising came off as dystopic and even predatory in some people's assessment and that's just with western society dipping their toes in these waters.

About rights being built on what already exists rather than just granted:
What we're asking for isn't something brand new, but a formalization and extension of what many individuals and underground groups already do clandestinely. Bringing it into the open enables better safety, support, and respect for personal choices.

Agree on that in theory. But, in the age of Big Data, anything you say can and will be used to add to your data profile to market things to you and grant/deny access to goods and services based on that profile. Transparency can come at the cost or privacy.

Suicide is a form of ultimate freedom only if it can be done without pain and suffering.

I think that's a subjective statement. If you've been on this site long enough you would know some people absolutely want to go out in violent manner. I go by Seneca's letter 70 in this regard, where there's a will there's a way.

And who says there's a right to die by one's own hand w/o pain and suffering when even natural death more often than not entails pain and suffering? It's baked into the cake of the laws of mother nature. Does the gazelle have the "right" to a painless death in the jaws of a lion? Of course the vegan might say yes and that the lion should be conditioned to eat fruit and become a breatharian :D

About violence and the reality of life:

I agree on most everything you said in that paragraph but you did leave out the most glaring example of war. With more education and communication larger numbers of people see war as induced suicide for the benefit of those in power and under false pretenses. In the US Viet Nam was a turning point and many hippies faced ostracization from society for "dodging the draft" which could be reframed as "avoidance of induced suicide and committing compulsory murder".

During WW1 there was the "white feather women" - The comely daughters of the noble class would put a white feather in the pocket ununiformed and unenlisted the found in public men to shame and emasculate them for not marching off to war.

I see zero evidence that that the powers that be won't use an on-the-table prosuicide solution to implement a new iteration of induced suicide especially when all they talk about is over population. Now for the antinatalist, pro-mortalist or eugenicist perhaps it's a good thing to thin the population so that the remainder can have a higher quality of life. I'd argue that those arguments have been proven by history to be a thin veneer for maintaining a wealth differential between classes.

The idea that suicide is an "abomination by healthy human nature" is a moral and cultural interpretation, largely shaped by religion and societal norms.

I said abhorrent not abomination but just the same I don't think a natural recoil is due to moral or cultural interpretation. When I was around 5 my sister laid down in the street as a Ford Bronco barreled down the street to run her over as I screamed for her to stop. I was not raised in the church and suicide was a non-topic in my life aside from her. I viscerally did not want my family member to die a violent death in front of me for reasons I could not fathom. I did not need to be taught or conditioned to feel that way.

They do not owe their family anything just because of blood ties.

In relaying my personal experience above, I wish to express I did not and do not presume to lay claim to another persons humanity or self-agency. That same sister went on expressing her wish to die for almost her entire life and I wondered at times if things would have been better if she had just gotten it over with. And when she got terminally ill, she begged me to score her some fent. My personal ethics would have me oblige as it was hard to see someone I love suffer so much.
However, for many of the reasons you've correctly stated around stigma, my "helping" in that matter could/would be considered homicide of a vulnerable person with mental heath issues. As it turned out, eventually she was prescribed fentanyl in her course of treatment. Our family allowed her full access to these meds. I also facilitated very frank and hard discussions with her oncologist regarding "death with dignity" which is legal in our state. My advocacy for her right to decide what to do was not always viewed positively by other family. I can tell you that when this debate is happens to someone directly involved in your life, it's a very fine line between advocacy and encouragement. It's very easy to project on someone suffering what YOU would do in their situation. Heck, even the oncologist was all green lights for the suicide cocktail and I think his own projection was a factor. This gets even more complicated when money and inheritances are involved. Many people would have no problem sweet talking someone suffering into suicide if there's something to gain. And it doesn't even have to be sinister, being a caregiver can drive a person to the breaking point to where shortening the time to the inevitable seems valid (and often is objectively).

For whatever reason she decided to go out on hard mode and die naturally. It may be to your point about having access to methods and acceptance resulting in a resolve to live.

In some way I think she wanted to transcend her suicidal urges and I would say she succeeded. But I'm literally the only person in the world that discussed all options at length with minimal moralizing while also being mindful not to coax her in either direction.

Why interpret such a deeply personal decision as a personal offense?

I'm not sure how you're interpreting anything I've said as indicating being personally offended. I'm not. I agree with the spirit of many of your points. I'm just pointing out what I view as the practical obstacles.

To me, the argument boils down to how to have better access to desired means and advocacy for the self-agency of suicidal people while also preventing induced suicide at the hands of opportunistic family, tired caregivers and predatory institutions. Behind the scenes, the role of insurance companies prob plays a bigger role than we know as they're in the business of predicting what a person will do with their body.

Just about all the highly publicized debates have an element of induced suicide at the core. Jack Kevorkian, Sarco, the people that people here used as sources and even Amazon for selling SN and their algo suggesting books on suicide to go with it are maligned over the specifics of inducement and where that crosses the line to perceived culpability bordering on homicide. The stigma is part of the issue because for society at large, ANY discussion that isn't fully against is construed as overtly pro. Honesty=murder in societies eyes. The public language around this has to be so careful that I don't see how our current sound byte rage bait likes and views culture can handle it maturely and this is why I value SaSu and it's anonymity , because the messy side of the language can be worked out organically. I don't trust this issue to be debated in good faith on CNN, Fox or the floor of congress where people's primary concern is their professional trajectory.

I'm pro decriminiazation of assisted dying and pro-somewhat guarded access to methods such as substances. I believe clandestine and anonymous means of communication play an important role in self-agency and expression of thoughts and ideas. There's been a lot of progress and also some setbacks. I don't think we need to change the sentiments of all of society, a few well positioned advocates can do a lot of good and continue to do so.

 

[TooMuch.]

I just called a psychological support hotline to talk about the idea of creating an organization for the right to die by choice, not because of depression, illness, or old age, but as a personal, lucid decision.


The psychologist refused to answer me and seemed embarrassed. Maybe it was because I sounded determined, maybe because she realized her own limits.

I don't accept the rules of this world, or all the constraints imposed on us from birth. I'm not sick. I'm not lost. I simply consider ending one's own life to be the ultimate form of freedom.


This isn't about promoting suicide. It's about ending the moral monopoly on life and death!
It's about breaking the automatic assumption that wanting to die = something is wrong with you.


I think it's time to build a global movement with local branchs, a space where young and old, rich and poor, marginalized people, philosophers, and those weary of psychiatry can openly talk about this taboo.
A place where everyone can make the best choice for themselves, without fear of judgment, pathologization, or moralizing. Where these people could also choose to believe in """the beauty of life""" while fully realizing they have the right to end it.



MANIFESTO :

It means recognizing that suicide is a legitimate option and an absolute right, without promoting it.

It means opposing the idea that the right to die belongs only to the elderly or the physically suffering.

It means rejecting the manipulation and guilt imposed by family, society, psychologists, and psychiatrists.

It means ending the blackmail that says life is inherently good and must be preserved at all costs.

It means demanding the right for every individual to end their life with painless methods.

It means believing that every human being must take personal responsibility by making an irreversible choice, fully aware of its consequences.

It means granting the right, just as we allow ending the life of a fetus or an animal, to choose one's own end of life.

It means giving people the possibility to consult mental health professionals, and if the desire to die persists, granting them the right to follow through.


It means letting people refuse to live in a world full of suffering, inequalities, competition, disease, injustice, and greed.

It means stopping the lie that life is a quest for happiness that some never knew.

It means giving the right to those who see life as absurd to take control of something they never chose: their existence.


If this resonates with anyone, let's start talking. I live in France, and you?

I don't live there but Iv kinda thought about something like that too, probably be a thing where you go in for multiple check ups to see if you're feeling the same way, rule out things that could be effecting one's decision making , maybe with a system like that when you end to the end stages with that they send you to someone that can help you fill out a will or something, and boom they get two birds with one stone, they help people like us AND catch people struggling with decision making and can give them help or something

 

[Tamila_sev]

I'm not sure how you're interpreting anything I've said as indicating being personally offended. I'm not. I agree with the spirit of many of your points. I'm just pointing out what I view as the practical obstacles.

Sorry if there is a confusion in my message! I was speaking about the reaction of the families, friends and the relatives when someone dies of suicide, not about you personnally!

 

[Forever Sleep]

It's weird isn't it? Both abortion and animal euthanasia are in effect, actually murder. They are the killing of a living being without its permission. Which is fine- apparently. I do happen to support both actually but, the concept is just bizarre. A lot of people are perfectly fine with that idea but the person who can actually vocalise that they want out of here because they are suffering in an incurable way- apparently no- they can't have that choice. Weird. For a world that supports the idea of autonomy, we are so oppressed.

 

[Abyss Dweller]

My psychologist said that there's no inherent problems with suicide. The problem is that it usually comes from a (very) dark place. Which I do agree with.

I do think about the timelines a bit though. Like let's say you've been in a dark place for 10 years.. is that enough? Is that "justifiable", makes it ok? Or 20 years?
Don't know.

 

[Tamila_sev]

Hey back, @Kali_Yuga13!

Why should society (or even an unrelated person) interfere in the decision of someone who owes them absolutely nothing? Why is that individual's act considered important, even though their departure will, concretely, change nothing for others? If someone chooses to go, they go. Why do we cling so tightly to keeping them here?

About the organization and bureaucracy, I'm not talking about creating an association to actively "help" people die. I'm talking about a movement that applies political pressure so that the right to die painlessly can be seen and treated as a human right. And that suicide is no longer treated as taboo.


Yes, systems are dehumanizing, but systems also make rights enforceable. Bureaucracy is a tool, and it already exists around suicide: psychiatry is a bureaucratic system, with diagnostic manuals, admission criteria, and tracking mechanisms that determine who gets help, who gets locked up, who gets medication, who gets denied agency.
So why not frame the right to die within a system of rules, just as we did with abortion?

You're right that in the age of Big Data, speaking openly can carry consequences. But every subversive or insurrectionary movement has found its encrypted spaces, from underground presses to pseudonymous chatrooms.


The fact that most public advocates for the right to die are elderly, and thus out of reach of prosecution, is no coincidence. It's part of how the State keeps young people silent: by threatening them with consequences.


About suffering and death : Of course suffering is part of natural death. But we have since centuries medical methods that provide painless death. The real problem is that these are kept inaccessible, or wrapped in stigma.
So yes, maybe my view is subjective but I believe that in a world where the only available options to die are violent and painful, people are forced to fantasize about those brutal methods. Only the most determined go through with them. But so many don't die simply because they don't want to suffer.


Humans instinctively avoid suffering throughout life. It's not surprising that most would prefer to avoid it in death as well, unless they've been pushed to extremes.

If we legalize this right, I don't think it leads to automatic abuse. Why? Because it will be regulated, like every right. It will require a process. That's how bureaucracy works.
But more importantly, if this right becomes law, it will raise new questions:
Why are the people requesting it often the poorest, the most disabled, the most exhausted...?
Why is it always the vulnerable who are "ready" to die?


And that's when the political conversation opens. That's when we can expose eugenic patterns, class discrimination, and systemic neglect.
Legalizing suicide doesn't stop resistance : it gives us the framework to see what's really happening (HAHA!!) and fight for deeper justice. The weaknesses of this humanity will appear.

Legal access to death should be accompanied by education about life, about meaning, about autonomy. People should learn to think critically about what it means to live, what it means to suffer, what they want to bring in this world in its imperfections and what it means to choose life or death.

This kind of education could deconstruct destructive cultural myths like the idea that losing a lover should destroy you, or that romantic despair is a reason to die. Those beliefs are produced by media, by culture, not by nature.


We can teach people to be self-sufficient emotionally, to separate their survival from the validation of others. And in doing so, we could prevent many suicides without coercion — simply by changing how we frame pain, loss, and identity.