h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

My last post was not a cry for help.
I'm not currently, at this precise moment, in a period of suicidal idealisation.
This thread evokes feelings and thoughts that are diificult to accept and observe without distress. I am unhappy and angry about the prejudice, ignorance and borderline fascism of the post I had to yikes.

I have a set of what are described as 'Core Beliefs'. One of these absolute deeply entrenched beliefs is that there are no people that care about me to give up on.

For now I am coping.

Was that Hoo's posting you yikes'd?

Well, I think that's a shame. Though a lot of people don't get his humour.

Anyhow, glad to hear you are coping. I won't assume anything further about you. Take care.


az

If you think what he posted was funny you're sicker than I am. What he posted was offensive and potentially harmful.

I can't remember exactly what he posted, Stealth, and now can't go back to refresh my memory because you had the posting removed.

I do like Hoo's humour most of the time. As I say, if I had the chance to go back and read what you felt was offensive I might be able to give you a reply as to whether I found that particular posting funny or not.

But now I am not able to do this.

If a posting can be 'potentially harmful' then I suppose that rather sums up the gist of this thread.


az

I've fought sometime suicidal depression for 10 years and have managed to pull myself back thus far, countless times for the sake of friends, ambition, guilt; the prospect of the universe having to witness my slow deterioration through drugs being a far better gesture of aggression than simply leaving it, and something of a family tradition. A movie I'm waiting to see. At the moment it's climbing Ben Nevis next September for Cystic Fibrosis (I will be looking for sponsors, btw ).

At times I have wanted to die and I have said so. I've been hospitalised for it twice, and each time I've been helped through long enough to re-assess my life, to live, love, work and create; even to do the same for others. But at those times it is *really* hard to express how much it hurts, and what understanding exists of whatever expression comes out can be the difference between someone who wants people to know they FEEL they wish they were dead finding a reason *not* to feel that way, and someone who would easily have found a way to be a joyous asset to the world for decades to follow, being killed by a pang.

The gist was 'people who say they want to die should be killed' a logical if not particularly over-assesed position, a knee-jerk response to a social inconvenience. Perhaps if it's not too reductio ad absurdam, swap the brain chemistry for the heart. Someone has a heart attack; his heart obviously didn't want to beat, why resuscitate it.

People say and do things in the heat of mental illness that in any other circumstances they would not. The role of a civilised society in those circumstances is to understand and recognise the illness and help give support and understanding to anyone whose feelings become a danger to themselves or others, and treatment.

The joke was fascistic, but I could see it was one. Dangerous is up to the reader, but I thought it was cheap, and I know Hoo can do a lot better. Personally I would have questioned why they didn't ban the film outright, if they're concerned with people's safety. I' mean, 90 minutes of Tracey Emin? 'Everyone I've Ever Slipped With?' Pass the razorblades.

In response to the original question, it's presumably Morrisons now but the taramasalata at the one on Bridge St, Andover was, *particularly* nasty. Jah bless.

Well, a safe way of suicide would be one where you don't risk ending up as a vegetable or with limbs missing. If you try and shoot your brains out, there's a chance you won't actually kill yourself. But instead have to life with half your face shot away, or with brain damage and unable to do a second attempt. And jumping out in front of a train would be a bad idea too, you might just loose an arm or leg, or become paraplegic. I'd go with the CO2 poisoning, as long as nobody stops you in the middle of it, it should be painless and safe.

Attempting suicide by anoxia can leave massive brain damage in survivors. Really nasty debilitating stuff. It certainly isn't a "safe" thing.

Jumping in front of a train or off a building's pretty selfish, too, from the point of view of anyone driving or having to do the scraping up afterwards.

I'm for walking into hospital and licking some nurses. A fatal infection, somewhere to lie down while it kills you, and the morgue's just downstairs. Cut out the middle man.

Looking forward to the Preacher movie

Well, I doubt the infection will be painless though. But yeah, throwing yourself off a building is quite selfish.

"I'm for walking into hospital and licking some nurses."

Yeah, but every time I do that I get arrested...



Suicide attempts are more than an inconvenience. They cause massive, repeated, and ongoing distress to the people around them. I've heard it described as like a living bereavement, except that grieving and moving on is impossible because they're still there, and you're just holding your breath waiting for them to try again and wondering when it will happen and if this time they'll be successful.

And if talking about it makes people who do it feel uncomfortable or offended - good. Perhaps you now have some tiny inkling of what you're inflicting on others with your choices.

And there's where the analogy with the heart is shown to be just nonsense. The heart does not "want" to beat, any more than a rock "wants" to fall when you drop it. It's a question of personal responsibility.

Bizarrely, we actually expect people in this country (the UK) to take personal responsibility for their heart function, a completely autonomic system. If you need heart surgery and you smoke, treatment can and will be withheld until you stop smoking - even if that means you will die. This is perfectly legal and quite common, and is accepted on the basis that we must prioritise how funds are spent in the NHS, and people who continue smoking in the face of medical advice, on some level don't "deserve" treatment, because of a choice they've made based on a physical addiction.

And yet "attempted suicides", who have made the deliberate choice to harm themselves by much, much more direct means than merely smoking are repeatedly treated, counselled etc. and have resources lavished upon them that, in my opinion, would be much better spent on people who want to be well.

One of the things I did in the post that was hidden was express disgust at this double standard. My opinion is unchanged, indeed, somewhat reinforced, by the comments and actions which followed.

You want to commit suicide? Great. Come to your local hospital, it'll be quick, painless, and there's a child there who could use your kidneys, since you seem so damn ungrateful for them.

H.

"If you need heart surgery and you smoke, treatment can and will be withheld until you stop smoking - even if that means you will die."

Do you have proof of this claim Hoo? I had heard that the idea was being proposed but not that any health authority had actually adopted it as policy.

What about people who don't want to kill themselves but enjoy the adrenaline rush of dangerous sports like, say, bungee jumping, rock climbing, rugby or kick boxing? If they turn up in casualty with head injuries are they asked to sign something stating they will never base jump or waterski again before they can get treatment? Where do we draw the line? What about people who drink to excess - it certainly hasn't applied to [insert ex footballer here] - or those who live on fast food?

As for suicide; surely it's a personal choice. If an (unsuccessful) attempt is made due to some form of mental illness, or a side effect of the medication used to treat that illness, then the victim is sick and deserves treatment just as does the victim of any physical illness.

As a lifestyle choice however I would say it is ill-judged and not to be recommended. If it is a response to some intolerable pressure (debt, bullying, shame) and you are really prepared to go that far then there must be something else you can try first. There are people who can help you.

If it is a considered response to some hideous terminal illness then I have some sympathy with that. Just make sure you do it properly, tidily and so that either your body will never be found or will only be found by someone trained to deal with such things. And preferably leave some form of unequivocal message - you don't want one of your loved ones being charged with murder.

F

Surely a safe way of ending it all would be one where you manage to dispose of your own body in the process so there is no chance of anyone being contaminated by your half rotten flesh when they find you. Equally nothing involving electricity, acid or heavy machinery should be used as these could also be pretty dangerous for others when they clean you up.
A wonderful way would to get a friend with a mobile incinarator wagon to park next to the sea. During the night you hop in the back, your ashes pop out the spout straight into the water and the next day your friend can take the wagon away with no ill effects whatsover (provided they have a lack of a guilty concience).

<>

I think the difference between a smoker who doesn't "deserve" treatment and someone who repeatedly attempts suicide due to mental illness is the knowledge involved.

We all know that if someone smokes, it is highly likely that they will get cancer of some kind, heart disease, emphysema, something like that. This has been studied and is now being used in legal cases involving smokers who weren't told the dangers of smoking, and became addicted.

Someone who smokes, then gets sick, and is told that they wouldn't be sick if they hadn't smoked, and would get a bit better if they stopped, is responsible for the consequences of their actions. They knew (or at least, from about 1985 onwards) that smoking would make them sick but they kept doing it.

What causes mental illness? Is there something that a person who is depressed or suicidal did or took or ate that made them sick? Who knows? So why is the same expectation of responsibility placed on the mentally ill? They can no more help being sick than a person with lung cancer from smoking. The difference is that the smoker knew that what they did would probably make them sick, but they still did it. Suicidal thoughts and actions are just symptoms of the illness, the same way that chest congestion and shortness of breath can be symptoms of lung cancer.

Sorry about the long post

Ami of zx

<<"If you need heart surgery and you smoke, treatment can and will be withheld until you stop smoking - even if that means you will die."
Do you have proof of this claim Hoo? I had heard that the idea was being proposed but not that any health authority had actually adopted it as policy.>>

I've seen this in a film recently, though not sure if this reflects real life. The character waiting for a heart transplant was caught smoking by his wife and she reminded him that he would be taken off the transplant list if the doctor found out he was smoking. This film took place in the US.


az

>>Yeah, but every time I do that I get arrested...

Well clearly you're not doing it right.

My answer to the question 'Is there something that a person who is depressed or suicidal did or took or ate that made them sick?' is years of physical and emotional violence from an alcoholic parent.

But here's the thing. Long before I had any real emotional difficulty myself, the first thing that afflicted me after I fled was epilepsy. I spazzed out a fair few times over the years, got good treatment and have since grown out of it, but no-one ever suggested I stop writhing around choking on my tongue and think about other people.

I've done my best against the depression too, to learn about the consequences and understand myself better so I can reason through suicidal feelings. But I still have them, and at times I can't even *see*, they're so intense. For a lot of people, especially younger people this is far harder to bear, the environment they're in far less amenable, and the scope for better times far less encouraging. They need patience, tolerance, and treatment.

This is pretty much one of those times, so I'm off; I am however very grateful for my kidneys, since they're taking the brunt of it for me right now, thanks. But I'll ask you this, H.

Have you *ever* acted on a feeling in a way that you wish you had not, but had been so gripped by it you couldn't see past it, or recognize the consequences it might have for others?

Attention seeking sounds like a petulant child, for some that must be so, but its reasons are as varied as the people that do it, some announce, some telegraph, but we were not awake to read the signs, some do it, and we wish we knew why. The fall out for the survivors is horrible, it's no wonder that they some times add to the lemming lists. Its a black hole of depression, I doubt, yet think Counsellors are a good thing, I doubt some as their not qualified, their paid for listening to a reeling story, I wonder though I write stories if I could do it? But a lot of jobs sound like money for old rope, yet its sitting in the heat you find out how easy or difficult it is.

"Have you *ever* acted on a feeling in a way that you wish you had not, but had been so gripped by it you couldn't see past it, or recognize the consequences it might have for others?"

Or, as someone else might put it, "have you stopped beating your wife?".

That is a question to which any answer condemns the respondent as either unqualified to hold an opinion or hypocritical.

However... my answer is: no, not that I can remember. I have never, in my life, been so gripped by any feeling that I have been unable to control my actions. As for doing things without recognising the consequences for others - I take responsibility for what I do. Doesn't everyone? (Obviously not.)

If someone is NOT capable of recognising the consequences of their actions on other people, I'd say that's a persuasive argument for locking them up until they can.

H.

Well, I'd spent the better part of an hour typig a reply to this, and my computer crashed as I tried to post. Which is most likely for the best, as looking over the backlog, there are folks participating here who would likely attack/ slag me off for saying what I wanted to say. So, I'll let it suffice to say that I agree with Hoovooloo, 100%. That'll do for now.

I was quite surprised to discover some statistics that showed a rather large percent of people who attempt suicide were not what we would consider mentally ill. They might meet DSM-IV criteria for substance abuse or borderline personality disorder, but neither of these are truly considered mental illnesses. Before I'd seen this, I'd also assumed that the vast majority of suicides occurred in people with depression, bipolar disorder, etc.

Of course, this isn't to say that suicides don't happen in mentally ill people -- they certainly do, and with especially high rates in some populations. But if people are assuming that suicide automatically equals mental illness, that might be an assumption worth reexamining.

Myself, I enjoy the out of life. There are so many things in life I love to do that I will never be able to get everything done in this lifetime. I think that anyone who isn't able to feel the joy and love in life deserves help and treatment.

Saying that some people deserve treatment more or less, depending on their actions, quickly dissolves into some very fuzzy areas.

If you have two people with bipolar disorder, one attempts suicide and one doesn't, do you conclude that the latter is the one who "wants to be well" more strongly, or that the former is more severely ill? In a land of limited treatment resources, who should get priority? I've seen substantial cases made for either.

What if you have two tuberculosis patients who are both refusing to take their medications properly -- one because of the severe side effects, and one because he thinks the authority prescribing the pills is out to get him? Does one deserve further treatment more than another? Does it matter that untreated tuberculosis can pose a risk to others in society?

In general, I think that trying to allocate medical care by who "deserves" it more is always a bad idea -- the inherent personal bias involved in deciding whether an alcoholic with cirrhosis, a mentally ill patient with a suicide attempt, or a prostitute with AIDS, or a chain smoker with lung cancer most deserve treatment is an ethical field of landmines. They're each ill and as human beings deserve to be whole, and no one who would wish continued illness on another person should be working in the healthcare field to begin with.

However, in the land of limited resources that we all live in, we simply don't have enough resources to make everyone well. That said, I think it can be perfectly ethical to allocate some resources based on who is most likely to significantly benefit from treatment. In some cases, that will jive nicely with who people see as "most deserving", in other cases it won't. This is already the primary metric used in many countries to allocate organs for transplant.

I think that with organ transplants it is easier to draw the line - if someone waiting for a heart transplant continues to smoke then they should be placed further down the line for this option. Likewise a person waiting for a liver transplant who continues to drink.

I don't think cases of suicide are so easy to discern. My personal background might make me quite prone to suicidal tendencies, yet I don't - have never - had any. But I can understand why it might be thought I should have such tendencies.

It is easy to say that suicidal people are simply being 'selfish'. And perhaps they are, I can't really say. I can't know what would make someone want to ever take their own life, even though I've lived situations wherein people may have decided this.

I do think that anyone who takes this drastic step has already lost contact with whatever the world can offer them, so whatever result their death might have is already beside the point.

They have stepped beyond . . . they are somewhere 'out there'. Some are asking for help - to be helped back. And some just really want to go.

Who are we to judge? And in other cases, how can we help?

It doesn't make it easier that people in these situations often refuse help.

Yes, it is a very selfish act. Without caring for the pain inflicted on those who care. And it is also a very selfish act in the sense that it is the only thing - the only possibility - they can think of. Pain is a very self-centred emotion. Most of us have other things to counteract our painful moments. Some of us don't. I don't think we can judge these people, only offer them as much help as they are willing to receive. But sometimes you can't help someone - sometimes they just want to go.

Most of us are selfish in the way we live. We do what we can to make the best life for ourselves. Nobody sees anything wrong with this. But if someone wants to end their life this is seen as being a 'bad' sort of selfish?

I find it terribly sad, a waste. But I cannot judge.

az