Venting Those who made up their minds should not be lumped with all suicidal people and have their wishes (to die) respected!

[TAW122]

In the past and even to present day, there are two types of suicidal people, one whom is genuinely suicidal (those who made up their minds and do not want to be stopped) and another that are acutely suicidal or temporarily suicidal (meaning they won't likely become suicidal or will recover shortly after), and sadly society lumps both categories or types of suicidal people as the same and treats them all the same, regardless of context, or so. It is also one of existentialgoof's (an avid champion of pro-choicer philosophy and stance) gripes about how society makes no distinction between the two kinds of people. By this lumping of both the genuinely determined suicidal people along with the ones who are just temporarily suicidal, it creates a lot of problems and contention, where the ones who are determined will either try again (and fail) or resort to worse methods causing more collateral damage as a result of their attempts due to being denied reliable peaceful means, etc. though I digress.

Note: If anyone (who was on the subreddit SaSu prior to it's banning by shitty Reddit platform and before the founding of this platform, SaSu, there was a quote, comment, or maybe even a thread that talked about how people who are on that subreddit (SaSu, predecessor to this forum) and even SaSu forum here do NOT wish to be talked out of or even stopped (intervened against) their plans, or attempt at CTB. It has been such a long time, but I feel like it is still relevant even today and just doesn't get discussed enough.

So for this thread, this is going to be about the 'determined suicidal' person, the one who made up their mind. With that point established, society's issue is that they just simply do not respect the right to die (no surprise!) and even worse, especially in the most recent few years, they (society, the State and the populace, the masses) have only gotten more and more paternalistic with their suicide prevention effort, campaigns, and policies, even borderline (if not already) violating many civil rights, all in the name of protecting others from their own interests, and what not, all before bodily autonomy. Of course, bodily autonomy is thrown around by the masses and only when it pertains to things like abortion or other civil rights (womens' rights, minorities' rights, marginalized groups' rights, etc.). However, when it comes to oneself wanting to take matters into their own hands and end their own suffering, all of a sudden they are treated like criminals despite having harmed nobody, committed no illegal acts nor criminal acts, all because they are found or determined to have planned, attempted, or will attempt to CTB!

What should have happened with society and the populace (which sadly won't happen though) is for the actual suicidal people, those who already made up their minds clearly on what they want and have an unwavering, consistent and persistent wish for an extended time to be able to have them honored (otherwise what is the whole point of wills, directives, and other things, etc.) with only the person themselves able to cancel or change them. Then the ones who may only be temporarily suicidal, will get the intervention they seek or so. Ultimately, respect the wishes of those who already made up their minds, and I believe that people who are on SaSu already did so. It is really disgusting how most/all of society just seeks to shut down the only avenue of unfettered real discussion of methods, philosophy, and even just general talk of suicide and similar topics!

 

[_Gollum_]

I agree that making this distinction between the two groups would be a big step forward, but it's still a form of gatekeeping: your decision will still be in the hands of others who do not--cannot--experience your own subjective experience of life. Which is particularly problematic because the line between these groups isn't always clear. There are people who have chronic, serious suicidal ideation for years and then make full recoveries, whereas there are people who go much of their lives without suicidal ideation and then become extremely determined, convinced, and staunch over a relatively short period of time.

Ultimately, because I believe that death is not a harm for the individual, I think it should always be a sufficient justification just for someone to express that they want to die. Of course, I understand that society-wide, this is extremely unrealistic to hope for, and if we're talking about a government-run MAID program, it wouldn't be practical or desirable, but ideally that would be my position: unconditional pro-choice. It's your life, it's your choice.

 

[Forever Sleep]

I do somewhat agree with what you're saying. I think there is a tendancy for people to claim that many suicides are impulsive. I wonder more if that's because they don't want to admit how long the person had actually been struggling and- they ignored the signs. I think it removes accountability from them if they claim: 'They had no idea'.

I've even read newspaper reports on a suicide to that effect. Followed by- the person had been receiving therapy for depression the past 5 years. And those around them still had no clue?

The issue as I see it though is, how do you distinguish between the two? Many of us here began having suicidal thoughts in childhood. I even had a half joking but seriously intentioned pact with a friend at school- when we were ten. They've gone on to 'grow out of it' (I imagine.) They have a family and full life now. The thoughts never left me. Another friend also began having ideation in childhood and is more similar to me.

How can you know though? During the first experience of ideation- whenever that hits- aged 10, 18, 24, 36- whether it will be a phase or a long- term shift into feeling that way? Does the person need to feel like it consistently for a period for them to be considered serious about it?

Again though- how can we be sure that that is now their destiny to feel like that always? Some people seem to turn things around after attempting and failing. Presumably- if they had succeeded- it would have been a mistake- because it turns out, they did in fact have the potential to 'recover'.

So- how do we know who's 'serious' and who is only going through a 'phase'? Do we look at what they're suicidal about? But then, things in life affect us differently. Someone suicidal about a breakup or failed exam may move beyond that but- what if it points to a bigger problem in relating to people generally or a likelihood they won't find employment? How can we even know which problems are temporary and which point to long- term issues?

 

[TAW122]

I agree that making this distinction between the two groups would be a big step forward, but it's still a form of gatekeeping: your decision will still be in the hands of others who do not--cannot--experience your own subjective experience of life. Which is particularly problematic because the line between these groups isn't always clear. There are people who have chronic, serious suicidal ideation for years and then make full recoveries, whereas there are people who go much of their lives without suicidal ideation and then become extremely determined, convinced, and staunch over a relatively short period of time.

Ultimately, because I believe that death is not a harm for the individual, I think it should always be a sufficient justification just for someone to express that they want to die. Of course, I understand that society-wide, this is extremely unrealistic to hope for, and if we're talking about a government-run MAID program, it wouldn't be practical or desirable, but ideally that would be my position: unconditional pro-choice. It's your life, it's your choice.

I suppose some form of gatekeeping does exist, yes, even temporarily but only because of practical reasons and as little as possible, like a waiting period, another determination, but ultimately the choice still lies with the individual to make it after some significant time (waiting period of many months or maybe a year or so), and in the end as long as the right to die is respected, it's probably the best middle ground in terms of allowing choice, not trampling on the rights of both kinds of people, those who claim others can still recover but died too soon and the others who aren't trapped indefinitely until natural causes or other causes of death.

Of course, sadly, the realities of society that we live in don't even allow any compromise or concessions, just blanket prohibition of CTB, which is why people are determined and really serious about CTB often go about it secretly, resulting in people 'finding out' and dealing with the aftermath..

I do somewhat agree with what you're saying. I think there is a tendancy for people to claim that many suicides are impulsive. I wonder more if that's because they don't want to admit how long the person had actually been struggling and- they ignored the signs. I think it removes accountability from them if they claim: 'They had no idea'.

I've even read newspaper reports on a suicide to that effect. Followed by- the person had been receiving therapy for depression the past 5 years. And those around them still had no clue?

The issue as I see it though is, how do you distinguish between the two? Many of us here began having suicidal thoughts in childhood. I even had a half joking but seriously intentioned pact with a friend at school- when we were ten. They've gone on to 'grow out of it' (I imagine.) They have a family and full life now. The thoughts never left me. Another friend also began having ideation in childhood and is more similar to me.

How can you know though? During the first experience of ideation- whenever that hits- aged 10, 18, 24, 36- whether it will be a phase or a long- term shift into feeling that way? Does the person need to feel like it consistently for a period for them to be considered serious about it?

Again though- how can we be sure that that is now their destiny to feel like that always? Some people seem to turn things around after attempting and failing. Presumably- if they had succeeded- it would have been a mistake- because it turns out, they did in fact have the potential to 'recover'.

So- how do we know who's 'serious' and who is only going through a 'phase'? Do we look at what they're suicidal about? But then, things in life affect us differently. Someone suicidal about a breakup or failed exam may move beyond that but- what if it points to a bigger problem in relating to people generally or a likelihood they won't find employment? How can we even know which problems are temporary and which point to long- term issues?

These are interesting questions and as for the depression argument, I think it's a catch-22 because it starts off with the unfalsifiable premise that all those who want to CTB are depressed and thus unable to make sound decisions and ignores any possibility that even though they may be 'depressed' that they can actually make good decisions - one example would be but terminally ill patients do often have a 'diagnosis of depression' but that doesn't mean that they shouldn't have access to assisted death or death with dignity because of their 'depression' due to their ailments, thus those who are depressed even though non-terminal should not be deemed unsound of mind. In other words, soundness of mind is something that is either they are sound of mind or they are not and should, can be determined by other means rather than using that as a pretext to just deny agency and bodily autonomy to people.

As for ideation, yes things are more gray for sure, however, it should be pretty clear that if a person has been suffering for an inordinate amount of time, has tried various solutions, did other things, and still have yet to recover or make enough progress (of course, it is a difficult criteria - but the Netherlands or Belgium have done pretty well, more on that point later..), and it is very certain (I don't believe in absolute certainty as that is never guaranteed but near absolute certain/reasonable/relative certainty should be enough) that they will not recover even after more and more treatment, trying for solutions, they are just left suffering, then it is better for them to go than to be subject to endure for years and many more years until natural causes or so. For example, about the Netherlands, while it is still a long process and very few are actually greenlighted, they ultimately still get granted even if it is many years, which is better than absolute denial which also leads to people then resorting to DIY means to go (whether successfully or not) and the people around them have to face the aftermath or outcome.

To answer more specific questions, I think it would be a case by case basis. For example, the Spanish woman who was granted euthanasia by the Spanish highest court had originally been granted but blocked by legal challenges presented by her father. However, after another DIY suicide attempt (which failed and made her situation even worse, as a paraplegic), then ultimately the Spanish highest court upheld the previous lower court's decision to allow euthanasia for her, and she managed to find peace and no longer suffer. Another example is if a person's problem is permanent and they have demonstrated consistently over time they are not getting better, does NOT wish to get better, and there is a continuous unwavering wish to CTB, it should be obvious. Of course, there are so many other factors, but if someone has been suffering for many years, their problems cannot be solved, and they are likely just to be miserable for long periods of time (similar to treatment resistant depression - which hopefully MAID will allow it when their exclusion clause expires, assuming it does in March 2027), then the person should be granted that option. Just because they might get better, it could be a few years, 5, 10, 15, 20+ years, it doesn't mean they should if that's not what they want... After all life is still a gamble and they should not be expected to take that gamble just so society can feel better about themselves. If they are not granted MAID, then that's where they resort to other awful, yet desperate means and cause problems for society, which is a lose lose situation for all parties involved.