I don't think this is a topic which can be discussed effectively. Most platforms ban any discussion of the topic, even those who claim to support free speech will shut it down. But little is actually done to help people besides telling them to go to therapy or call some phone number.
Do people really think that if they restrict access to methods of suicide people will magically get better? If that's all that a society is doing then they're simply delaying the inevitable or condemning the person to continue suffering.
Worse yet, you drown someone in psychiatric drugs that kill the soul, leaving behind a walking corpse. And we pretend like it's some sort of mercy because there's an undead zombie. Even if it's but a shell of the former person.
The most likely outcome is that nothing major will change, and people will continue to lament the suicides.
Maybe people wouldn't commit suicide if they had actual help. But most of these people have probably been abandoned and isolated from society.
Within the harsh garden of reality not all plants are able to flourish.
> Do people really think that if they restrict access to methods of suicide people will magically get better? If that's all that a society is doing then they're simply delaying the inevitable or condemning the person to continue suffering.
I will say there is a difference between very impulsive attempts at ending ones own life during a dark episode and more pre-planned attempts.
In the impulsive case, even minor obstructions can cause the immediate impulse to fade, avoiding a very final decision. Hence why many impulsive survivors don't attempt twice. For these cases, keeping knowledge contained is a good thing in my book. This kind is also why guns are terrifying. Guns are one millisecond of impulse for an eternity of consequence.
On the other hand, if someone is an incurable pain patient for 20 years and eventually decides to not be a pain patient anymore... there is very little you can do about it.
> In the impulsive case, even minor obstructions can cause the immediate impulse to fade
This is the reasoning behind the limits on pack sizes of paracetamol (acetaminophen for Americans) in the UK, for example (you can buy only 32x 500mg pills at a time, and pack sizes are limited to 32 in pharmacies and 16 outside of pharmacies). There are about 10 shops within 10 minutes walk from each other near me that'd all sell it, so it's not like it'd be a barrier to someone desperately wanting a larger number of pills.
The decision followed investigation that showed that a lot of the time suicide attempts with paracetamol didn't even involve buying more, but simply consuming whatever was already in the house, and so even reducing the typical amount people would have available to them was seen as a potentially worthwhile.
Just to add to this: Tylenol/paracetamol/acetaminophen can be a tragic method, because many people whose attempts fail in the short term, and who might otherwise recover, end up with liver failure and requiring a liver transplant.
Incidentally, its capacity for destroying your liver is also why this drug is especially dangerous for treating hangovers or for people who frequently drink alcohol.
I agree, but I don't think victims of suicidal impulses are negatively impacted by resources being out there.
They're probably not going to impulse search for a suicide method, impulse read pages of instructions, impulse order the necessary equipment, impulse prepare said equipment and then kill themselves.
Instead they'll likely just use a firearm, as you said, or a rope, both items that are immediately accessible to most people.
Suicide isn't always an 'I need to die right now' thing.
People can suffer with severe depression over many years despite trying multiple treatments, others mays want to end their own lives to avoid the most painful stage of a terminal illness. They want a fairly peaceful and painless way out, and don't want to leave a horror movie scene for somebody to clean up afterwards. They may consider their options over a fairly long period, and may research or even discuss methods online.
Sure, but these people should have that option, right?
I'm just saying that removing resources about proven suicide methods does little to prevent impulsive suicides, while forcing those who thought long and hard about it to take a messy and less surefire way out.
If you make information about effective and readily available ways to end ones life available, people harboring bad depression will read that, acquire these tools and use them on impulse during a dark episode. And we can discuss control over one's own life and body more, but if depression forces a person to take their life because today was worse than yesterday, are they in control of their own situation? Those people need help to sort their own being out, not help to choose death.
And that is very different from someone overall committing to end their existence on their terms, because there is no way for it to become better. Knew a guy in chronic pain who spent half a year socializing their pets with a few friends, gave away all their equipment in a sport, canceled all contracts, wrote down his last will, setup a call to emergency services two days after and then went to a long sleep.
> If you make information about effective and readily available ways to end ones life available, people harboring bad depression will read that, acquire these tools and use them on impulse during a dark episode.
If you don't make that information accessible, people harboring bad depression wanting to kill themselves on impulse during a dark episode will just jump in front of traffic or off the nearest bridge or try whatever pills they can get their hands on or any other means they can find in total ignorance.
It's not about helping people choose death, it's about making sure that people who have already made the choice have access to the information they need to get their affairs in order and can end their lives as peacefully and assuredly as possible.
Ideally, we'd have legal and well-regulated euthanasia, and those who are genuinely suffering with no real hope should have a better way out than 'blowing their brains out'.
But Canada's experiment with this is showing the potential dangers of that, of offering euthanasia as a 'solution' to poverty in old age.
> of offering euthanasia as a 'solution' to poverty in old age
Nobody needed Canada for that. That option has always been on the table and plenty of people have taken advantage of that. It's not as if Canada was keeping disabled people out of poverty before euthanasia was an option. I don't think very many people are saying that Canada shouldn't improve conditions for people just because poor could simply die with government approval instead of dying illegally they way they always had been.
> I will say there is a difference between very impulsive attempts at ending ones own life during a dark episode and more pre-planned attempts.
I'd argue that the people who are seeking out and participating in online forums looking for tips or directions for building devices to allow them die on their own terms aren't "very impulsive attempts at ending ones own life"
Nobody should make the decision to end their life impulsively, and preventing people from being able to access information on the topic may actually cause people to act without due consideration. I'd much rather have people taking the time create accounts, reading posts from others who are struggling, and gathering information on what to do or not do then going over that information as they evaluate their options.
"keeping knowledge contained" could mean people doing whatever comes to mind the moment it enters their head.
Bit tangential but it's kind of similar with "get therapy". Now, in 2023, that expression is almost morphed into an insult (implying the person is messed up and therapy would "fix" that), with zero consideration for them beyond telling "talk to a therapist about your problems", and implicitly, "just don't bother me with it".
It never comes from a place of care but as basically a way to dismiss anyone's problems by sending them to "therapy". No real problems are solved that way and this is just one of the ugly faces of the uncaring hyperindividualistic worldview.
Of course it works like this. We have transformed into a society where risk elimination is critical to one's career. It goes much, much deeper than this.
What you neglect to mention, for example, is that therapists will do the same. As soon as they believe a suicide wish is realistic, they will do anything, including declaring the patient entirely healthy, to get them out. "Refer them" (ie. "go somewhere else"), declare them healthy, fall ill themselves, whatever. The alternative is that sooner or later they fail with a kid, which ends careers.
This means in practice there is no help with suicide. Not for kids, and not for adults either. If you have a real problem you will not be helped. But that's not the end of it. What will happen if you DON'T have a real problem? These institutions ... are paid per-patient.
So social services WILL lock up kids who express anything about suicide. "For their protection". On the aforementioned condition that they are very sure the suicide wish is NOT serious. These institutions get into the news regularly for the serious child abuse that happens there, and are legendary for how badly they take care of kids. No serious education (no more math, "rap lessons"). No going out. No TV. No contact with friends (oh! the risk!). They take away any prospects at a future, any reason to want to live.
That's where the money is in therapy: "treating" very, very light problems. Problems so light they wouldn't exist without therapy. And, because kids usually don't want this, forcibly treat them. Hence the "need" for closed institutions. Not so much to keep kids away from ways to kill themselves, but because they'd never see a therapist even once if they weren't locked up. And no patients ... no money.
Research into the subject regularly comes up with the observation that ... suicide does happen at such places. In fact, much more than in "free" society. Which seems strange, since they refuse any serious patient. You know, if a hospital were to only admit patients that do NOT have cancer, it's very weird to observe cancer deaths at such a hospital. But that's exactly what happens here. There is much discussion, which mostly focuses on that diagnosis (which such institutions don't do and therefore go blameless for) doesn't work. That they regularly get much more serious cases than they bargain for (thereby usually admitting that they use psychological diagnosis to AVOID helping real cases, but THAT problem doesn't need solving. The problem that needs solving is that psychological theory doesn't allow them to be effective enough at avoiding real patients).
But there's another, very obvious, explanation ... that these places, these treatments, rather than treat suicidal ideation, in fact cause close to 10% of kids admitted to commit suicide, when if you'd literally told those same kids that no help was available, at most 3% would have died through suicide. And that's assuming they do actually take serious cases, which they don't.
Things make a lot of sense if you realize the obvious: that help, social services, and child "protection" is built around the need for them to make money, either directly or through subsidies. And then they proceeded to hire a bunch of MBAs to maximize this money (so "known effective" methods, such as hiring highly educated well-paid individuals to take care of such kids) never happens anymore.
I didn't neglect to mention it, I just didn't think it's relevant at all. Of course, I agree, 99% of therapists are utter frauds who don't actually want to help anyone, but I thought that was not really relevant to the discussion here so I didn't say it. Otherwise, 100% agreed:)
edit: your comment was edited to include much more detail, so my comment is not relevant or up-to-date anymore.
I think you're broadly right, but at the same time, the topic of suicide is an information hazard to many people (as onethought mentions). Not just suicidal people, but people who are merely curious and, more worryingly, trolls who get a thrill out of manipulating others. For this reason, I can see why many people reach for the "authorities" to do something about it.
The longer term solution is to have good mental health provision and for people who might be in the earliest stages of suicidal ideation to be able to talk to either a therapist or someone they trust about their feelings. Do we have good mental health provision in the UK? Not. At. All.
It was shown in 1974 (Phillips) that suicide rate increased after reporting on it in the media. There is a correlation between it being present and accessible as an idea and increase in attempts.
People that will opt for suicide because they become aware from it through the media, are already depressed and feel defeated in life. Following with an action or not is then a technical matter.
If the media didn't report on suicide, and they didn't pick it up and go for it, they'd still be living in hell mentally.
So, real help would be more about helping them not feel like that (and even more so, to not live in circumstances that cause them to feel like that), than sweeping reports of suicide under the carpet.
I’m sorry, suicide has been shown to be much more acute activity than you are implying. Statistically if you stop someone, or thwart an attempt they do not try again the majority of the time.
Any action we do to reduce suicides really does save lives.
Yes. My point wasn't about merely preventing suicide, but about stopping people feeling suicidal, even if they don't consider or go through the actual act.
So not so much about saving lives in the technical sense, but about saving people by making them have lives worth living, and see life as such. Preventing things like bullying, abusive parents/spouses, job precarity and homelessness, and so on.
> Do people really think that if they restrict access to methods of suicide people will magically get better?
Effective mental health treatment isn't a pill that you take and get better; it's an ongoing, and often very long, process of gradual improvement. I don't think the article is proposing not treating people who are ill, and there's no suggestion in the article that the people were not receiving treatment. Since these people were based in the UK, our default assumption should be that they were receiving at least some level of treatment via the NHS. (Likely not enough, but some.)
To me, the article is proposing that we should consider removing what might be a serious impediment to the effectiveness of that treatment.
Let's take an example that is a little less emotive than suicide: alcoholism. People can and do recover from alcoholism. Imagine we somehow took two identical twins, both suffering from the same level of illness. One we place in a small town somewhere, where alcohol is completely absent for some reason (not banned, but functionally absent from everyday life). The other we place in the middle of New Orleans. We treat them both the same over a period of, say, three years. Which would you expect to have the better chance of recovery?
> Do people really think that if they restrict access to methods of suicide people will magically get better?
No, but we have good evidence that as part of a package of measures it's an effective way to reduce the numbers of people dying by suicide.
Your post contains a number of flags that show you're not familiar at all with this topic. (eg, use of the phrase "commit suicide"). If you want more evidence based information you could look at the UK's NCISH. https://sites.manchester.ac.uk/ncish/
This. The issue is that this is the most superficial interest into mental health. This is annoyance; society saying "stop that". There is no true interest in helping people. Even those who want to be helped and are prepared to work for it.
I'd say I'm pretty close to a free speech absolutist (barring direct, credible, personal threats of violence) but I'm also a parent of a teenager, and remember myself what being one is like.
Obviously people should have greater availability to mental health resources, but what worries me about a site like this is might enable the impulsive suicide - especially amongst adolescents.
> you drown someone in psychiatric drugs that kill the soul, leaving behind a walking corpse
A walking corpse is totally fine as long as it can keep toiling and paying taxes. From the perspective of our capitalistic society this is a good outcome.
> if they had actual help
A lot of mental health issues are a result of the war of attrition of the system against the person.
I bet that for a non-trivial chunk of people the source of their mental health troubles is that they got unlucky at life/career/education and are stuck in a vicious circle of poverty and misery with no way out. Also, merely accessing mental health counselling requires a privileged position - knowledge workers can take an hour of their day here and there with no problems at all, but for hourly-rate menial workers the choice might be between "go to this therapy session" or "be able to pay your rent this month".
Mental health counselling isn't going to change anything nor pay your rent/bills. This is a systemic problem; there are solutions but they would be bad for business and inconvenience entrenched interests.
I would like to see more research into the cause of mental health issues.
Some are clearly linked to types of pollution (eg. lead contamination), while others are linked to various diseases. Injury is another cause (contact sports, military use of explosives).
If we could do more research into finding out all the causes, and changing society to eliminate them, then we could probably cut down substantially on the number of people needing mental health support in the first place.
Are people not allowed to discuss their suicidal thoughts? Or, they are allowed, but only certain pre-approved opinions? Particularly, anti-suicide opinions are allowed while pro-suicide opinions are "illegal"?
People should have the right to choose what they want to do with their own body, including the choice to kill themselves.
Suicidal thoughts will not disappear by simply outlawing the public expression of them. You are merely pushing people more into the fringes, when you should be attempting to pull them out.
From what I've heard, the problem with this type of site isn't really the people expressing their own suicidal thoughts.
The problem the motivations of the people who responding to these expressions. Apparently these sites attract "angel of death" type characters who aren't suicidal themselves but appear to enjoy nudging suicidal people towards concrete action.
In the example I heard about, the site adopted moderation policies that were quick to delete any replies that were even vaguely anti-suicide (have you considered talking to someone), but had no problems leaving up replies encouraging people towards suicide. That site also had a paid members-only area that had instructions for foolproof suicide methods (which one of their members sold the ingredients for)
-----
So you have people who are struggling with suicidal thoughts, and they stumble across one of these sites. And they get sucked into an echo chamber where suicide isn't just talked about openly, but encouraged and even glorified.
Because it's hard and society makes it as hard as possible to do it in a dignified way without lots of suffering. It's not as easy as you think, even when you are suffering.
Being an empty walking corpse but technically living isn't any better than going through with it.
When people have the right to control their own lives, they will sometimes make bad decisions. Yes, sometimes that means a person will kill themselves in a spur of the moment thing when they really shouldn't have. And other times that means a person will contemplate suicide a really long time, continue their unnecessary suffering, and later regret their choice to live.
Give people autonomy and they sometimes make bad decisions. Is that not obvious? What do you want? You want to be the judge who decides for others how they should live or die? Get off your high horse, you're not God.
That doesn't mean they want to be alive though. Surviving a suicide attempt is a pretty awful and traumatic experience. It's entirely logical to not try again, out of fear that you will survive.
Of course, that's absolutely not universal. There are plenty of survivors who go on to live happy lives. But it's disingenuous to say that not trying again is evidence that they want to be alive.
A suicide-themed forum shouldn't be a problem in a healthy society. If the presence of a suicide forum is what drives people to suicide then there's something very wrong and it's not the forum that is the problem.
However, addressing the underlying issues that drive people to suicide is not only difficult but would also be bad for business and entrenched interests, so it's easier to blame the symptom instead.
This is a terrible, substanceless article. Nowhere within does it offer anything more than vague abstracts, all the while keeping this bizarre idea that a "forum" that provides information is directly responsible for doing something that people should be allowed to do. It ends by twisting deaths caused by a society that from the perspective of the "victims" isn't worth living in to propaganda for fascism.
What they call poison is most likely referring to curing salt one can buy off of Amazon.
As someone who contemplates it regularly, it's insulting to rob the attempts of autonomy. A person who is able to commit suicide is exercising autonomy. They are not mindless, and they are not insane.
Everything about this, from the framing of its subjects, to the dubiously-real "letter," to the British press harassing a foreign citizen, is rather disgusting. It's a thin, opportunistic attempt to validate a terrible law and claim it doesn't go far enough.
I don't know a thing about the site, but from the way it's described, they aren't going out of their way to hurt anyone, or being actively malicious. Is this really where we want to head? Suicide deaths have barely moved at all per capita since 1970. If it's really about the facts, like the article says, then it might help more than it hurts.
My friend changed her mind at the final moment. It was too late. She oscillated on the topic, going from normality to suicidal ideation. What you might call autonomy, I call her darkest moments. When that mood wasn't upon her, she laughed, she loved, she had aspirations, passions dreams and plans. All dashed forever.
Yes, depression isn't constant for everyone. That doesn't mean a person isn't responsible for their own decisions, and it doesn't mean the state should step in to force them out of their decisions. Especially without offering some form of relief for something other than symptoms. A person can "live, laugh, love," as much as you'd like them to. They can have all the aspirations and plans in the world and still ultimately not want to be alive. Just because one is afraid to die does not mean they'd want to be alive if they could flip a switch for it.
When I go, it will not be because of a momentary lapse in judgment as you imply. It will be something I've contemplated at good length for years on. Outside of pseudonymity, I will tell my acquaintances and friends that I am doing well. I will be doing well. It doesn't change how I ultimately feel about the subject. A "normal" does not invalidate what will happen in moments where someone finally works up the nerve to go through with something, because it isn't insanity that causes suicidal ideation. It's something calculated.
Sharing information on how to do it with the least amount of misery helps, it doesn't hurt.
What you are saying is "don't tell me how I feel", and I'm not. What I am saying is that I don't care how you feel because the internal experience isn't a universal one.
Do it, or don't, I don't actually care, but don't come around participating in discussions about rules and policy for a world you're prepared to leave behind.
There are actually vulnerable people throwing good things away, who might actually be helped, and those who the approach you prescribe (the status quo) lets down.
I'm not saying that you shouldn't tell me how to feel; I don't care about feelings about this. This is about rights, not feelings. I'm saying I'm going to participate in these discussions, because unlike you, I actually have a stake in them. Taking away information takes away rights. Rights that I might use, or rights that your friend used, or could have used to make the end less scary. In this sense, it is you who shouldn't have a say in it.
Your friend knew what they were doing. You seem to argue only because of your feelings, basing your view around how their death affected you. Information shouldn't be taken away from vulnerable people solely to protect those around them, because they can't handle the choices of others about themselves. That's deeply flawed as a way to build a society.
If you want to stop people from killing themselves, don't take away information. Don't advocate for outright fascist laws like the UK's Online Safety Bill, which this article is made to push forward. Advocate for actually making lives better. Making the world slightly more fascist isn't going to help anyone.
Don't be ridiculous. People aren't on that forum for information. Suicide isn't a science.
Furthermore, you're a fraud. You don't care about rights. Protecting rights is a constant sacrifice. If you're not prepared to stick around for the rights you think you and people like you are entitled to, you're unserious. You're larping as someone who cares. People like me will be around long after you're gone to fight to take away the rights you claim to care about.
Additionally, you have zero validity to speak about how my friend felt or what they knew.
Suicide is a science. It's hard to get a successful attempt, and without proper information people mess it up and end up more miserable than they started.
Fascists tend to survive longer than the victims of their policies.
I'm sorry but I find your post a bit cryptic. Are you saying that your friend committed suicide? I'm sorry to hear that. But how do you know that she changed her mind at the final moment, and why was it then too late?
I empathise with your position. But there is very clearly a spectrum of conditions and levels of autonomy at play when it comes to suicide. I.e there may be mindless/insane people within the cohort of people who attempt suicide, just as their may be people with full reasoned autonomy.
There are mindless and insane people who live perfectly normal and healthy lives. Putting safety rails on everything in society isn't something we do for them; their actions are still their own, and we generally accept that as a society, barring extremes such as dementia.
I’m sorry, I really believe we should intervene in suicide attempts. We have success stories of treating even the most debilitating and chronic forms of depression. We have zero success stories of bringing people back to life. Suicide is a permanent solution to a temporary problem (in most cases/euthanasia aside)
People who have lost someone to suicide often seek someone to blame, yet they seldom consider that the person may have had their reasons, most possibly unrelated to that forum. The forum serves as a vital outlet for individuals enduring difficult times, potentially saving more lives than it has taken. Nonetheless, some non-suicidal individuals aim to erase it merely due to personal dislike. It's bewildering.
The story talks about a few things which make it likely that the forum is contributory - a user is described as using information from the forum to frustrate a mental health evaluation, and in taking advice on an effective method of ending their lives.
It's not personal dislike so much as it seems like facilitation. Advice on how to fake it through a mental health assessment, which may otherwise have lead to help being given, seems particularly harmful.
I don't see any problem with that. Information that increases personal autonomy should be available to anyone, everywhere, and for any reason.
When you talk about "help being given," I suppose you are referring to drugs that don't work for most and therapy that cannot address the underlying problems.
When I talk about help being given I’m talking about interventions by friends, family and mental health professionals, that could take many forms. Knowing someone has a problem is the first step to helping them.
Not just drugs, that is an unfair characterisation of my argument.
It's because there is no real "help" being given there. Mental health services in many places are just "if you are really suicidal, we lock you up, otherwise we do nothing"... faking an assessment so you don't get institutionalised and get brain damage from all the pyschiatric drugs and end up a zombie is a pretty good idea IMO
What kind of help do you think they would give if they evaluate your mental health is poor?
If you hide your intent to kill yourself then nobody can help. And if you guide others in how to hide it, you’re increasing the likelihood they will die by their own hands.
Wow - the images on that BBC article are so bad. They are processing them, adding a background, effects, lots of 'blue'.... Why? It gives the impression of a light magazine article, not news.
Thinking about banning the forum instead of trying understand the stories, the pain, how we could help is stupid.
I feel like again "peoples" wabt to remove the red flare instead of going for the root cause. Because it is much easier. This is very present for mental health. Ignore the cause, just fet some surgery and a lot of medicine until it get worse and you die. Change you way of living, explore past traumas, question your strongest beliefs ? Hell no. Better ban a forum and call it fixed.
Alex Jones is being a dick? Disgraceful - we need to censor the internet.
Cloudflare is protecting a Neo-Nazi website from being DDOSed? There's no such thing as neutrality - we need to censor the internet.
Journalists are getting "harassed"? This must be stopped - we need to censor the internet.
Someone I don't like got elected? The problem is "disinformation" - we need to censor the internet.
Some guy in Scotland made an idiotic and tasteless joke involving his dog? We can't allow this kind of content - we need to censor the internet.
Joe Rogan is platforming the wrong people? They mustn't be allowed to spread their bad ideas - we need to censor the internet.
Something, something, Russia? Censor the internet! Censor the internet!!!
But wait: now suicidal people are getting suicide information from a web forum? You'd have never have guessed, but the answer is... to censor the internet!
Idk, I think that maybe the issue isn't the issue, these people just want more power to censor the internet.
Do people really think that if they restrict access to methods of suicide people will magically get better? If that's all that a society is doing then they're simply delaying the inevitable or condemning the person to continue suffering.
Worse yet, you drown someone in psychiatric drugs that kill the soul, leaving behind a walking corpse. And we pretend like it's some sort of mercy because there's an undead zombie. Even if it's but a shell of the former person.
The most likely outcome is that nothing major will change, and people will continue to lament the suicides.
Maybe people wouldn't commit suicide if they had actual help. But most of these people have probably been abandoned and isolated from society.
Within the harsh garden of reality not all plants are able to flourish.