[Rugoz]

So if "move on" is a good response to the people left behind, why isn't "get over it" a good response to the person that committed suicide?

Because one of them is dead and the others are not?

[LV-GUCCI-PRADA-FLEX]

@Rugoz straw man. They are both alive in the situations that I am talking about. Telling a depressed person to "get over it" is about as stupid as telling the surviving family members and loved ones of a person who took their own life to "move on". Except in the latter case there are MORE PEOPLE that you are asking to do it, and doing so with no empathy because I often see people say that who never knew anyone who committed suicide. It's like telling a starving person to go eat when they don't have access to food. It's cruel, and shows your lack of empathy and decidedly high amount of privilege (in that one area).

[Rugoz]

@Rugoz straw man. They are both alive in the situations that I am talking about. Telling a depressed person to "get over it" is about as stupid as telling the surviving family members and loved ones of a person who took their own life to "move on". Except in the latter case there are MORE PEOPLE that you are asking to do it, and doing so with no empathy because I often see people say that who never knew anyone who committed suicide. It's like telling a starving person to go eat when they don't have access to food. It's cruel, and shows your lack of empathy and decidedly high amount of privilege (in that one area).

I'm not sure what you're trying to say here.

Should suicidal people be forced to live because their relatives would feel bad about their death? Would that be an act of good? I find that absurd.

Needless to say temporarily preventing people from committing "irrational suicide" doesn't fall into that category.

[LV-GUCCI-PRADA-FLEX]

From a utilitarian perspective, absolutely.

From an empirical perspective as well, since there are plenty of treatment options available for suicidal people with intervention. Suicidal people tend not to seek intervention for one reason or another (generally cultural, environmental reasons and less anything to do with their desire for suicide). The fact that access to guns increases the rate of suicide is enough to tell you that suicidal people tend to commit suicide in a moment of weakness and not after careful consideration of the consequences of their actions. You're assuming that a lot of suicides are rational when a vast majority fall under the case that you say would be an act of good to prevent (irrational suicide).

From a religious perspective, suicide (excluding euthanasia) is inherently bad.

I'm not sure which ethical framework would see suicide as a positive thing. Perhaps it could be considered a neutral action under nihilism, but if that's the framework you're working under then it really doesn't matter what we do to the suicidal person anyway. I know that from a societal perspective, we should always discourage suicide because our society is worse off by glorifying or allowing it. That doesn't mean I think people should be punished for committing suicide, but I also think we shouldn't have suicide booths, Futurama style.

Obviously this is a very complex issue, but I tend to fall on the side of the families of the suicide victim. Empathy for that victim is there, yes, but since they have removed themselves from the considerations of life it's hard to say that their ability to choose supersedes the happiness of their family.

[Rugoz]

From a utilitarian perspective, absolutely.

Absurd. Clearly if the relatives left behind would experience the same level of pain they would commit suicide as well. I'd say almost 100% of them don't.

From an empirical perspective as well, since there are plenty of treatment options available for suicidal people with intervention. Suicidal people tend not to seek intervention for one reason or another (generally cultural, environmental reasons and less anything to do with their desire for suicide). The fact that access to guns increases the rate of suicide is enough to tell you that suicidal people tend to commit suicide in a moment of weakness and not after careful consideration of the consequences of their actions. You're assuming that a lot of suicides are rational when a vast majority fall under the case that you say would be an act of good to prevent (irrational suicide).

Preventing "irrational suicide" is ok with me, but one must be careful to not understand the term too broadly. For example, if a person made multiple attempts or the altnerative would be a zombie life under drugs that person should be let go.

From a religious perspective, suicide (excluding euthanasia) is inherently bad.

Religion is not a perspective, it's a mental health issue.

I'm not sure which ethical framework would see suicide as a positive thing.

Watch films like One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest or Mar Adentro.

As for philosophy:



I couldn't agree more with Nietzsche here. Personally I find your position appalling.

[MememyselfandIJK]

I never thought this would happen, but I am going to side with @Rugoz on this one. Suicide may not be pretty, but it is caused by flaws in our society, not in the individual. The only perspective that religion offers is a further slandering of those who could not find any other solution to their misery (in fact religion often is a source of misery and flaws in a society). While suicide is not positive, there is nothing to be gained from slandering the person post-death. It should be an opportunity for society to reflect and self-improve so someone with similar feelings would not be forced into a similar fate in the future.

[Drlee]

I never thought this would happen, but I am going to side with @Rugoz on this one. Suicide may not be pretty, but it is caused by flaws in our society, not in the individual.

So you are saying that if someone is miserable, the reason is "flaws in our society and not the individual"?

This is demonstrably untrue. In fact, it is not even arguable. Tell me how a mental illness is caused by "a flaw in our society".

[MememyselfandIJK]

@Drlee It is a flaw in out society because (in the West anyways) many people are self-absorbed and don't bother to check how the other person is doing. Additionally, the west does a poor job in terms of mental healthcare -- It is still a large stigma and many people regularly fall through the cracks.

[Drlee]

It is a flaw in out society because (in the West anyways) many people are self-absorbed and don't bother to check how the other person is doing.

This is a sweeping generalization. I think that people, by and large, do care about their loved ones and do care about them. I could even make the case that we are more involved with one-another than every before. I offer as evidence, Facebook. The means to put one's pain out there has never been more present.

Additionally, the west does a poor job in terms of mental healthcare --

The US does. Piss poor. But this is not universally true. Besides. A poor mental health system is not a justification for suicide.

It is still a large stigma and many people regularly fall through the cracks.

People with mental illnesses are stigmatized. No doubt about it. That said. A great many people with depression do receive help. Even in the US. The use of antidepressants in the US is very considerable yet studies show that there is no appreciable difference in efficacy between antidepressants and cognitive behavioral therapy. The difference is one of cost. SSRI's (Selective serotonin re uptake inhibitors; the most commonly prescribed antidepressants) and similar drugs are vastly cheaper than CBT. But here is the key. People on antidepressants are not likely to be diagnosed as suicidal by those who can professionally help.

So the deal is this. The stigma attached to suicide, including the insistence that the suicidal person should think of the survivors and the general notion that suicide is cowardly, actually work to prevent suicide and funnel people in such pain to whatever sources of help are available.

The takeaway message is that suicidal people ought to be made to feel that they are suffering from a treatable illness and that help is available. They are, and it most certainly is.

[Brother of Karl]

:eh:

So you are saying that if someone is miserable, the reason is "flaws in our society and not the individual"?

This is demonstrably untrue. In fact, it is not even arguable. Tell me how a mental illness is caused by "a flaw in our society".

This isn't a new concept Drlee. Haven't you heard of Durkheim's suicide study from 1897?

Suicide is well known to be a social phenomenon, not an individual one. It is fairly common in some cultures, and completely unheard of in others. You're a smart man, so you should already know this. Quit being obtuse.

[Drlee]

This isn't a new concept Drlee. Haven't you heard of Durkheim's suicide study from 1897?

I have and I am aware of his four classifications and their societal linkages. This study is 120 years old. Many of the bright lines he saw (such as the difference between Catholicism and Protestantism) are not so bright anymore. He lived in a world with draconian psychiatric interventions. Distinct and very unpleasant results followed any claim to what was then thought of as insanity.

I am not rejecting his work. It is still observed. But times have changed. We have interventions that are vastly less devastating in themselves, a society far more comfortable with the concept of treatable mental illness and access unthinkable in the 19th century.

Durkheim focused on social and societal influences on suicide. True enough. But in the 19th century there was little awareness of organic causes for depression and its link to suicide. It was thought to be a combination of heredity and weakness of character and was treated by locking people up. Not so today. Right?

Don't think for a moment that I believe that societal influences are not important. I do. Why else would 70% of suicides be white males?

So look again at what he said:

It is a flaw in out society because (in the West anyways) many people are self-absorbed and don't bother to check how the other person is doing.

Does this fit what you and I know? I think not. It is overly simple and, in my opinion not proved. We are far more connected than people in the past. The question is the depth of that connection. That would be fun to discuss is some more uplifting context.

Then he said:

Additionally, the west does a poor job in terms of mental healthcare -- It is still a large stigma and many people regularly fall through the cracks.

But compared to the 19th century? We are vastly more competent and care more accessible than ever before. And in terms of effectiveness there is no comparison.

If I were wanting to be cute I would assert that in Durkheim's day the very thought of treatment for mental illness would be a pretty good reason to consider suicide. Let's not go there.

To the larger question. Is suicide a sociological phenomena? Sometimes. Maybe even much of the time. But does its prevention lie in far reaching social change? Nope. It lies in helping the individual cope with both physiological distress and appropriate adaptation to their situation. An analogy? People have to learn to grow where they are planted. Sometimes they need a little fertilizer. Frequently they need the services of a really good farmer.

[Igor Antunov]

To all the suicidals out there; if you have given up on life and simply wish to die, then hear me out.

Come to my place and become my slave. It will be just like death; your life will be over.

Be productive with your bullshit please. Some of us need a cheap labour force.

[Rugoz]

The stigma attached to suicide, including the insistence that the suicidal person should think of the survivors and the general notion that suicide is cowardly, actually work to prevent suicide and funnel people in such pain to whatever sources of help are available.

I'd like to see empirical evidence for this .

Regardless, suicide should become less of a stigma among the elderly.

[Drlee]

Regardless, suicide should become less of a stigma among the elderly.

Go troll someone else boy.

[Rugoz]

Go troll someone else boy.

No trolling whatsoever.

I've personally witnessed how old people commit suicide by refusing food/medication. It's relatively common. I wish there was a better way for them to do it.

[LV-GUCCI-PRADA-FLEX]

That's normal symptoms of dying, not suicide. They were dying regardless.

[MistyTiger]

Suicide is well known to be a social phenomenon, not an individual one. It is fairly common in some cultures, and completely unheard of in others. You're a smart man, so you should already know this. Quit being obtuse.

Well this world is becoming increasingly individualistic with the rise of smart devices. People's lives can fit in the palm of their hands or in their pockets. If people lose their phone, it is like they lost a part of themselves. People are less social than in the old days when people had to go to clubs, bars, theaters...just to be seen and meet like-minded people. Now, they can sit at home and play interactive games or they can chat with people online, both without even leaving the house and they could be physically alone in their room.

Can you not feel how isolated we have become? Even when we go out, there are some who still have their eyes and fingers glued to that 5- inch screen.

People may be less likely to seek help. They may think that they can go to webmd or some online shrink to get help, but that may not be enough.

So I guess my point is that suicide is mostly an individualistic activity. I feel like the suicidal people are the ones who are too much in their head. They internalize everything when they should let it out. They just keep inside all the negativity and all the thoughts of insecurity and fear.

[Brother of Karl]

Well this world is becoming increasingly individualistic with the rise of smart devices. People's lives can fit in the palm of their hands or in their pockets. If people lose their phone, it is like they lost a part of themselves. People are less social than in the old days when people had to go to clubs, bars, theaters...just to be seen and meet like-minded people. Now, they can sit at home and play interactive games or they can chat with people online, both without even leaving the house and they could be physically alone in their room.

Can you not feel how isolated we have become? Even when we go out, there are some who still have their eyes and fingers glued to that 5- inch screen.

People may be less likely to seek help. They may think that they can go to webmd or some online shrink to get help, but that may not be enough.

So I guess my point is that suicide is mostly an individualistic activity. I feel like the suicidal people are the ones who are too much in their head. They internalize everything when they should let it out. They just keep inside all the negativity and all the thoughts of insecurity and fear.

Individualism is a social problem too.

[MistyTiger]

Individualism is a social problem too.

I agree. I refuse to let any "smart" device suck me in. I never cross a street while looking down at a screen, so yeah...no Pokemon go for me.

[LV-GUCCI-PRADA-FLEX]

Tell that to the people with mental health issues who are able to reach outside voices from online that they never would have met without the internet.

Sure some things are still bad but it's not because of technological advancement. It's not like suicide is some new thing. Or being depressed. There were just different ways of killing yourself, and more things to worry about killing you. That's why suicide is up, in my opinion. The rest of the ways of dying are down, for the most part, so suicide become a bigger problem by proportion.