People often have very reasonable reasons they want to kill themselves. Doesn't mean they should necessarily do it, but such statements are invalidating or unhelpful to the suicidal.
I think ultimately people just want to be understood.
It's also a little bit cultural isn't it. For instance Euthanasia is a form of suicide that can be entirely reasonable and made in the absence of mental illness.
Viewing it as a tragedy isn't in itself invalidating, it can be a way of viewing the issue as a means to progress.
But I do agree that just blurting it out and pasting it places is inconsiderate, and not acknowledging the current reality of people's situations don't make them better.
When you can't materially do something for the person, the best is to listen and offer some insight with the disclaimer - that's the best you can do and would have done more if it was possible.
Many people come claiming to help but they make the issue political or about them. A person is likely already aware of generic advice because any query showing suicidal intent on Google will show those helplines and results.
Is she seeing a psychiatrist? Antidepressants stop working all the time, she should be having this conversations with her psych or telling her psych that she's stopping treatment and finding someone else because it's not working. If she's on any other basic meds like sleeping pills or anxiety meds she should be able to get a prescription for them from a GP or any cheap synch in-network only by saying she's already taking them.
I almost ended up as the murdered half of a murder-suicide due to that. Which is damnable because I've never seen any other treatment have the same effect as esketamine.
I really hope they find some way to solve that, maybe they also need to administer anti-psychotics in that case, I truly don't know. Because the treatment itself is just about as close to turning off depression as anything I've ever seen. Though I understand it may not be that way for everyone, for some, it really helps.
See also: https://slatestarcodex.com/2019/03/11/ketamine-now-by-prescr...
If the child is better off with their dad killing themselves, that's a failure of society to protect the child who was being abused, or possibly the child has inherited some sociopathic tendencies.
For most people, the suicide of a parent is traumatic, regardless of whether there was abuse.
Subtle cultural hint
I've never been a SWE or developer. Communicating with lawyers and PMs is what I mostly do.
You sound young or too invested in your own life to actually understand the real circumstances for why people would not want to live.
You do realize that not everyone sees life as a gift, right? Some people imagine never being alive in the first place a greater gift.
You mention that if all things are possible to everyone, no one would choose death over life.
Again, you’re wrong. You can’t fathom why someone would opt to no longer exist if all things were possible, but I know people who would opt to chase everything from existence if they had the power.
You just don’t understand it.
I’m really amazed that you honestly think you can speak for everyone when it’s clear you’ve never given other peoples’ outlook anything more than a fleeting thought.
Personally speaking, I’m happy with my life. If I reached my old age and someone gave me the option to live indefinitely or to stop, at some point I’m just going to want to stop.
At some point, I’m going to want to cease to being.
TV Show - The Good place. Highly entertaining, lots of ethics material.
Ultimately ends up saying the same thing but takes you there so wonderfully that you feel the joy of it all at the end.
I don't know if I would be consideree young but I am no stranger to the subject.
> You do realize that not everyone sees life as a gift, right? Some people imagine never being alive in the first place a greater gift.
Yes, I do. That's because of the life they know. Not existing to begin with sounds great because of your relative knowledge of what existing means.
Given that many conditions are irreparable, the general direction of the logic that we always want to live if enough things could be changed (i.e. so we enjoy life) is a truism that doesn't mean anything. Even if all forms of dementia get cures, they won't be restorative for those with it today.. for example.
As far as chasing immortality, assuming you had any say in it, any means of staying alive is natural unless you are talking about supernatural things.
I am interested in facts not emotions. Facts work. Let us agree 1+1=2 then let's talk about 1+3 and 2+1,etc... Let us agree that even if you are helpless and hopeless against the realities of life, that is the driver of suicidal tendencies (not depression neccesarily).
How can we solve a problem if we don't agree it is a problem and we don't agree what the prolem is?
Then let us talk about the impossible and let us talk about defeating reality. I would love to talk about how to overcome the impossible. Or we can agree a person is hopeless and helpless against life , they lack control over their thoughts or emotionsand for that reason their only escape is suicide. But let us use facts and critical thinking. I tried emotions, I tried it all but only truth helped me.
Why are so many technical people on here dead set on the impossible and a hopeless reality? This very technology we use to talk to each other was impossible. Not improbable but dead set impossible even half a century or less ago! It should be impossible or me to be alive and talking to you but here I am! Why is hope so unpopular? Ok, you can kill yourself if you want, society approves if it makes you feel better. Now can we talk honestly and critically about the facts, and can you pose factual adversarial challenges against my argument?
> Yes, I do. That's because of the life they know. Not existing to begin with sounds great because of your relative knowledge of what existing means.
Let me ask you about that “relative knowledge”. Are you under the impression their relative knowledge is lacking? Or has it occurred to you knowing more and knowing how good life can be can make you appreciate life less?
Not the OP but there may be circumstances where someone is justified believing their continued suffering is a burden to themselves and others.
> By what authority?
What authority do you believe is violated by someone making the choice when and how they die?
> Did you bring yourself into the world?
No, exactly. So if adults of sound mind have a right over their own person (despite an involuntary birth) then certainly they have a right over how and if their existence continues.
> If all things are possible to everyone, no one would choose death over life.
This isn't saying much. Not everything is possible to everyone. Rational people are making difficult decisions all the time for this very reason.
I don't advocate suicide. Plenty of survivors can speak to the value of life better than me.
Yes, they may believe that but they are still not held responsible by anyone to take their own life!
> What authority do you believe is violated by someone making the choice when and how they die?
That's a bigger discussion, I shouldn't have said that to avoid provoking people. But I will say, by the same authority that tells you it's not your right to take other people's lives, even if they want you to kill them. Not yours to give,not yours to take.
> No, exactly. So if adults of sound mind have a right over their own person (despite an involuntary birth) then certainly they have a right over how and if their existence continues.
Legally? Depends on what society finds acceptable I guess. Personally, I can't criticize someone for doing so, but regardless of your sanity the answer to this question depends on the answer to other questions like is your life your own even though you didn't create it and didn't raise yourself? Is the purpose of your existense entirely meaningless or self contained? Or is your life meant to serve a greater purpose? Morally speaking it depends on your view point. Irrespective of how HNers think this is unpopular, the answer depends on your beliefs and I think I made mine clear. Legally, I don't think preventing peoppe from killing themselves would be of any use. The focus should be on offering mental health services not on criminalizing suicidal tendencies.
> This isn't saying much. Not everything is possible to everyone. Rational people are making difficult decisions all the time for this very reason.
I think you and all the downvoters missed my point. What I am saying is, death might appear like the answer and we can debate about that but what a suicidal person desires is to escape from life. You are insisting just because you believe death means ceasing to exist or end of pain, I have to accept that as well. You are saying death equals end of you. For example, few people want money (numbers and paper) they want the ability to buy something, so it I have some money but I am stuck in a supermax prison ,toilet paper means more to me than money I can't spend. Much in the same way, death may or may not allow you to escape life but what you want is not death because you have never experienced it, and even if you have certain beliefs about death you pick death over the present life because of how you have experiences life. If life was better than what you think death entails you would pick life. I am not saying life is better than death, I am saying you hate life and you believe death is an escape, you want an escape from life and you believe that is what death is.
> ...is your life your own even though you didn't create it and didn't raise yourself?
Other people's lives are their own. You seem to imply that because one doesn't chose to be born and cannot raise themselves that they don't have any right to chose to die. Then who does? Their parents? Some mystical sky being?
You're entitled to your own beliefs, however vague or fantastic they may be. Having spent a few decades being indoctrinated with a fear of an eternal hell (without any evidence) I'd rather not entertain such foolishness anymore.
I don't think this is the thread for discussing about God,heaven,hell,religion(or lack of it). But in journalism multiple independently verifiable sources count as a reputable source that backs a truthful story. In law, the testimony of two or more people is sufficient even without evidence (not just in the west but in almost every legal system). I and most of humanity disagree with your views of creation/origin, purpose of life and consequences of our actions beyond our lives. If you consider that irrelevant opinion, millions offer you testimonies of first hand experiences regarding these matters. I believe you can independently verify the testimonies of these unrelated individuals with everything to lose and nothing to gain (some get persecuted,tortured and killed for this belief!) should at least make you question the absolute and immovable nature of your conviction. I hope you are open to critical thinking, not emotions or wishy washy buzzwords meant to make you feel good. I can only encourage you to seek truth,however convenient or inconvenient it maybe, as I do the same with myself.
May the truth set us free from falsehoods and folly.
Second hand testimony is hearsay, if I'm not mistaken. And all firsthand witnesses to the most common faiths founders are all long dead. And few if any of them were literate.
Considering that most of their claims are either disproven (faith healing) or unfalsifiable (hell, Eden, etc) there's nothing tangible to gain and plenty for marginalized groups to lose.
No doubt you've been taught some of the mental gymnastics like confirmation bias, survivorship bias, and appeals to authority to 'prove' some personal experience or establish "the truth". In fact you suggest that because those beliefs are popular somehow they are more legitimate. Well, humans believed the world was flat for most of history. Yet I've flown around it without ever reaching the edge.
Whatever the truth it's best to hold ones views loosely. Then when a more fitting explanation appears one can accept it.
Considering that most of their claims are either disproven (faith healing) or unfalsifiable (hell, Eden, etc) there's nothing tangible to gain and plenty for marginalized groups to lose.
I said first hand, to all of that and more.
> No doubt you've been taught some of the mental gymnastics like confirmation bias, survivorship bias, and appeals to authority to 'prove' some personal experience or establish "the truth". In fact you suggest that because those beliefs are popular somehow they are more legitimate. Well, humans believed the world was flat for most of history. Yet I've flown around it without ever reaching the edge.
I am well aware of cognitive biases. You as well should beware just because modern intellectuals hold a certain view as popular,you should take it as fact. It was the intellectuals of the time that burned galileo. You're right, popularity does not serve as evidence. However, popularity should drive you to critically analyze your beliefs and the popular belief while being aware of your own biases. You're not enlightened just because you believe what modern science says.
Whatever the truth is, you should not hold on to it very strongly not giving room for lies.
After thirty years hearing people say "I saw/heard/felt it. It's real." I call bullshit. Bring tangible evidence. (Decades of earnest investigation left me empty handed.)
People with suicidal tendencies don't need conditioning, judgment, "salvation", or imaginary love. They're more likely to benefit from human attention, communication, and understanding; ideally not motivated by some salvation quota.
The human predicament by David Benatar. https://www.amazon.com/Human-Predicament-Candid-Biggest-Ques...
The conspiracy against the human race by Thomas Ligotti. https://www.amazon.com/Conspiracy-against-Human-Race-Contriv...
My grandmother committed suicide. My mother has tried to commit suicide on several occasions, and I have suffered from depression for most of my life.
I'm happy to say that ketamine infusion therapy was a breakthrough for me, after decades of making no progress with anti-depressants, I am now virtually depression-free and have been so for years. I highly recommend it to anyone who suffers from treatment-resistant depression. That said...
> Every suicide is a tragedy.
Statements like that on suicide prevention websites have always bothered me because I find them disingenuous, and for me personally have always been counter-productive. I think it's obvious that not all suicides are tragedies. I think that as uncomfortable as it makes us, for many people suicide is the most responsible decision a person can make.
Not everybody has loved ones, and not everybody is a great person. My best friend's father was incredibly abusive and incredibly miserable, despite spending his whole life in various forms of treatment. His death marked a significant improvement in my friend's wellness. I suppose this man could have just left his family but...I wouldn't say his suicide is a tragedy. He's no longer suffering.
A lot of the arguments I see against suicide is that it hurts the people around you. Which is true, and this effect is difficult to understate. I'm still affected by the suicide of my grandmother, whom I never even met.
But that's not a reason to live, that's just a reason not to die.
I'm guessing that access to quality healthcare is one of the best ways to prevent suicide. (Luckily I could afford my ketamine injections and subsequent prescriptions.) I think that's obvious to everyone though. Strange in my country how access is still such an issue...