Why is the rate of suicide increasing so much?

[chiguirre]

8 minutes ago, Arctic Mama said:

Because all humans suffer in some degree, and perseverance through that suffering is an incredible tool for personal growth.  

That's true until you have terminal cancer. Then the only growth left is the tumor's. At that point, you should be allowed to say enough. In fact, knowing when to say enough both for your sake and your caregiver's is a fundamental piece of human agency.

[Bluegoat]

3 minutes ago, chiguirre said:

Why do you think suffering has ontological value?

 

I meant those as separate clauses, but yes, I do think it has ontological value. I think perhaps it's inherent in love and connection.  It's an important issue in traditional Christianity where suffering is seen to be taken into the fabric of reality in a fundamental way - to avoid suffering would imply avoiding life.

[Rosie_0801]

3 hours ago, Arctic Mama said:

No, I think you’re misreading it if you’re talking about moi.  

 

They have every bit as much to live for, but do they see themselves and their choices in light of their eternal value or temporal?  If their view of their death is of an end, which they have every right to choose as the sole author of their own destiny, does that make a difference in their willingness to end it compared with someone who has a religious worldview with explicitly different ontology.

 

I’m asking about how a person views themselves and their place in history or eternity, not how someone else views them. I’m sorry if I didn’t make that clear ?

 

I believe strongly in inter-generational trauma. What's that if it's not an ugly, secular version of everlasting life?

[Bluegoat]

3 minutes ago, Frances said:

But people didn’t live nearly as long or have nearly as much medical intervention either. While religion versus securalism may be an influence, I also think longer life spans, medical advances, and more elderly people also play a role. Feeding tubes are a prime example. Previously, many people would have died without them. Now they can and are used for many,many years.

I think in many cases medical advances have made the questions around human suffering and end of life much more complicated.

 

I don't really see that as making a difference.  People didn't live as long, but they suffered from terrible diseases and died slowly pretty often, with poorer tools to alleviate the pain. Refusal of a lot of life-extending measures is a rather different discussion I think.

 

[Frances]

7 minutes ago, Arctic Mama said:

Because all humans suffer in some degree, and perseverance through that suffering is an incredible tool for personal growth.  I speak 100% from personal experience on that one, on everything from suicide to marital trouble to sick babies.  Suffering, even intense physical agony, isn’t an evil to be eradicated at any cost.

 

And that’s just the temporal argument.  There’s an eternal one too, relating to the course of history in God glorifying himself, but I figure you probably don’t care about the details of that side of it.

But what about people who are not really there mentally because of advanced dementia or other causes? I think it’s  pretty hard to argue for personal growth in those cases. Not that I’m at all suggesting euthanasia in those cases. But we now have medical advances that allow people to potentially live much longer and therefore suffer for much longer periods of time. And it gets a lot more murky when we all have to start thinking about all of the possible medical interventions and whether or not we want them for ourselves.

[chiguirre]

1 minute ago, Bluegoat said:

 

I don't really see that as making a difference.  People didn't live as long, but they suffered from terrible diseases and died slowly pretty often, with poorer tools to alleviate the pain. Refusal of a lot of life-extending measures is a rather different discussion I think.

 

But they didn't have a choice unless they could make their death look like a convincing accident. If they committed suicide, their family would suffer the social consequences. That wasn't a better time. In fact, you could make the argument that enforced Christian morality made things much worse than our current free-for-all.

 

(I've got to take Trinqueta to rowing for a couple of hours. I'll read up when I get back but this will have moved on by then.)

[Guest]

16 minutes ago, Arctic Mama said:

Because all humans suffer in some degree, and perseverance through that suffering is an incredible tool for personal growth.  I speak 100% from personal experience on that one, on everything from suicide to marital trouble to sick babies.  Suffering, even intense physical agony, isn’t an evil to be eradicated at any cost.

 

And that’s just the temporal argument.  There’s an eternal one too, relating to the course of history in God glorifying himself, but I figure you probably don’t care about the details of that side of it.

I have been thinking about this a lot recently - the role of suffering and the tendency (certainly the way I came to think in adulthood) to believe suffering must be avoided, erradicated, removed. 

One time I was watching an otherwise useless video; I don’t even remember the larger point or purpose of the video. But the speaker said this:

”Pleasure never made anyone great - difficulty does.” 

I wrote it on a sticky note and stuck it in my cabinet and it is still there with my other collection of worthwhile quotes. I think, as a very idealistic person, it is easy for me to think I must erradicate all difficulty, must remove all potential obstacles. But there really is a role for difficulty. It’s like that quote in Finding Nemo where Marlin freaks out and says, “But I don’t want anything to happen to him! (nemo)” And Dory says, “Well you can’t never let anything happen to him. Then nothing would ever happen to him.” Right on, Dory. Life happens when stuff happens to you. (Although I really can identify with Marlin...) 

[Mergath]

2 hours ago, Arctic Mama said:

Social acceptability, commonality, sorry if the meaning wasn’t clear.  You said yourself that it’s different if it is for medical reasons - that signals you believe it is an acceptable or permissible option, right?  Someone can and should be able to choose it and it’s okay to do so?

 

Of course. I don't think we should force someone to live if they have no desire to do so. However, I think there's a huge difference between someone with an incurable disease and months or years of agony ahead of them and no hope of treatment or even management of their disease, and someone who does something impulsive in a moment of despair or psychosis because they can't access mental health treatment for whatever reason.

[Bluegoat]

6 minutes ago, chiguirre said:

But they didn't have a choice unless they could make their death look like a convincing accident. If they committed suicide, their family would suffer the social consequences. That wasn't a better time. In fact, you could make the argument that enforced Christian morality made things much worse than our current free-for-all.

 

(I've got to take Trinqueta to rowing for a couple of hours. I'll read up when I get back but this will have moved on by then.)

 

I understood Frances to be saying that the fact that we live longer and have more medical options has caused us to think differently about suicide because there are more people suffering from fatal diseases longer.

My response was that I don't think that's necessarily the case, people probably died more horribly in many instances, and though they may have been somewhat younger, people were perceived as old younger as well.  In the end, we all die.

[Bluegoat]

2 minutes ago, Mergath said:

 

Of course. I don't think we should force someone to live if they have no desire to do so. However, I think there's a huge difference between someone with an incurable disease and months or years of agony ahead of them and no hope of treatment or even management of their disease, and someone who does something impulsive in a moment of despair or psychosis because they can't access mental health treatment for whatever reason.

 

We're often better at alleviating suffering in the former instance than the latter.

[EmseB]

My favorite piece on suffering was written by Elizabeth Scalia more than 10 years ago.  I am not a Catholic, but I reference back to it a lot, especially now seeing dementia up close in my family. https://www.catholicity.com/commentary/scalia/03558.html

Speakng generally from my impression of this thread and the KS thread, it's interesting to me that many say that mental illness is just like cancer in a medical sense, but yet want to draw a bright line between choosing euthanasia as a cancer patient and killing oneself due to mental illness at home without doctor supervision. In the first case, it seems like choosing euthanasia is seen as a dignified choice, but opting to do it oneself because of depression or bipolar is the horrible, tragic version that leaves trauma in it's wake and shouldn't happen. I mean, what would people say if KS or AB had gone to their doc to ask to be euthanized because of their mental illness?

[Mergath]

1 hour ago, Ktgrok said:

And...I just saw someone post on facebook that they think chronic, intractable depression is a legitimate reason for euthanasia, because it's like terminal cancer. 

 

Do you think it's not? 

There are people who have tried for many years to treat their depression/anxiety/whatever with zero success. They've tried all the meds, worked with mental health professionals, even done the woo. They reach a point where they just can't take anymore. I'm not going to say their mental suffering is somehow less painful than another person's physical suffering.

I don't think people should be allowed to request euthanasia because they were just diagnosed with SAD the month before and the first med isn't working or something like that. But if a person is working with a psychiatrist for a long period of time and there are no treatments left, it should be an option if the person wants it.

That said, I'd much rather see humanity get to a point where we can cure, or at least treat, all this stuff so no one ever has to wish for death because their suffering has become unbearable. And dear god, no one should ever, EVER have to want to die because they can't afford their medication.

And even if I think euthanasia should be legal in certain cases with the approval of medical professionals, I still think it's heartbreaking. It's similar to my stance on abortion- I think it should be legal, but I wish no one ever had to make use of it.

[Katy]

23 minutes ago, Frances said:

But what about people who are not really there mentally because of advanced dementia or other causes? I think it’s  pretty hard to argue for personal growth in those cases. Not that I’m at all suggesting euthanasia in those cases. But we now have medical advances that allow people to potentially live much longer and therefore suffer for much longer periods of time. And it gets a lot more murky when we all have to start thinking about all of the possible medical interventions and whether or not we want them for ourselves.

 

If you want my honest answer as to what about advanced dementia it's that the purpose of that suffering isn't their personal growth, it's the personal growth of those caring for them.

But then again, it's not those with advanced dementia that suffer much, it's the newly diagnosed.

The most frustrating cases I found in nursing were families who refused to let relatives dying of cancer die.  They often wanted resuscitation and prolonging of life of someone with cancer so advanced they were no longer themselves, they were only in physical pain. It was extremely frustrating because it was inherently selfish.

There is Catholic theology about offering up suffering as a sacrifice, but not being Catholic I don't feel I've ever fully understood it.

[Frances]

8 minutes ago, EmseB said:

My favorite piece on suffering was written by Elizabeth Scalia more than 10 years ago.  I am not a Catholic, but I reference back to it a lot, especially now seeing dementia up close in my family. https://www.catholicity.com/commentary/scalia/03558.html

Speakng generally from my impression of this thread and the KS thread, it's interesting to me that many say that mental illness is just like cancer in a medical sense, but yet want to draw a bright line between choosing euthanasia as a cancer patient and killing oneself due to mental illness at home without doctor supervision. In the first case, it seems like choosing euthanasia is seen as a dignified choice, but opting to do it oneself because of depression or bipolar is the horrible, tragic version that leaves trauma in it's wake and shouldn't happen. I mean, what would people say if KS or AB had gone to their doc to ask to be euthanized because of their mental illness?

Well at least in the case of doctor assisted suicide, in my state it’s not allowed in the case of mental illness or dementia, even if the decision is made at the very beginning of a dementia diagnosis for a time later in the progression of the disease.

[Frances]

5 minutes ago, Katy said:

 

If you want my honest answer as to what about advanced dementia it's that the purpose of that suffering isn't their personal growth, it's the personal growth of those caring for them.

But then again, it's not those with advanced dementia that suffer much, it's the newly diagnosed.

The most frustrating cases I found in nursing were families who refused to let relatives dying of cancer die.  They often wanted resuscitation and prolonging of life of someone with cancer so advanced they were no longer themselves, they were only in physical pain. It was extremely frustrating because it was inherently selfish.

There is Catholic theology about offering up suffering as a sacrifice, but not being Catholic I don't feel I've ever fully understood it.

I agree that with dementia at the end, it’s caregivers and family members who suffer the most. But I was referring to cases where dementia or other brain conditions exists with other co-morbid conditions that are causing physical suffering. And the individuals can’t really communicate about their suffering.

And I completely agree that it’s very selfish to prolong the pain and suffering of others for your own selfish reasons. And in a world of limited medical resources, I also believe it’s selfish for other reasons.

Having been raised Catholic, I actually understand and see value in offering up suffering. My mom often refers to it. And I certainly don’t disagree that suffering of all sorts can lead to personal growth. But intense physical pain with no chance for cure and being kept alive through often costly medical intervention, I can’t get on board with that for myself. And fortunately all my immediate family members, both religious and not, agree. And that made it so much easier when both my dad and FIL chose hospice.

[Bluegoat]

3 minutes ago, Katy said:

 

If you want my honest answer as to what about advanced dementia it's that the purpose of that suffering isn't their personal growth, it's the personal growth of those caring for them.

But then again, it's not those with advanced dementia that suffer much, it's the newly diagnosed.

The most frustrating cases I found in nursing were families who refused to let relatives dying of cancer die.  They often wanted resuscitation and prolonging of life of someone with cancer so advanced they were no longer themselves, they were only in physical pain. It was extremely frustrating because it was inherently selfish.

There is Catholic theology about offering up suffering as a sacrifice, but not being Catholic I don't feel I've ever fully understood it.

 

You might try reading Descent Into Hell if you are in need of a book.  It's a novel, but I find for things like this fiction is often much better than straight non-fiction.  Williams often talks about the basis of relationships - with god, other people, even nature - being a kind of exchange between them, much as there is exchange between the persons of the Trinity.  It talks about the idea of taking on the burdens of another as an element of that exchange, in an almost ecological kind of way.

[chiguirre]

29 minutes ago, Arctic Mama said:

My friend just had a brain tumor removed earlier today.  No, neither she nor her husband would ascribe to the belief that she has a right to end her life to shorten her suffering.  They both will say that God numbers her days, not them, and that whole it is right and good to seek treatment, death is not treatment.  It’s in a different category than palliative care or even hospice.

 

She has been in a ton of pain since waking up but is responding normally, neurologically, and is heading in for her post op MRI in an hour or so.  It’s been a rough day.

I hope your friend gets a good MRI.

[shawthorne44]

DH and I were in high school in the late-80's at very large schools.  There were a great many suicides.   I remember our chant against our football rivals was 'kill them before they kill themselves.'   It became not_a_big_deal unless you knew someone well.   DH and I were discussing our reaction to the recent suicide news.  Which was basically, 'Meh, I wish they'd stop talking about it.'    

[maize]

1 hour ago, Arctic Mama said:

Not her, but if suffering isn’t just meaningless pain but has a purpose and an end and is considered part of a normative human experience, that is worlds apart from a view that holds suffering as meaningless evil to be escaped or avoided at any cost.

 

And that divide will have drastically different manifestations in the choices of the individuals involved. 

 

I agree, so long as you accept that mental illness can drastically reduce a person's ability to make choices.

[Liz CA]

6 hours ago, Tibbie Dunbar said:

There has been nothing in my life more depression inducing, and isolating, than religion. This last year, I was rejected by my own extended family because I don't adhere to their fundamentalist Christian religion and politics. These are people shared a lifetime with us, through hard times and family holidays, and who were there for us in emergencies. And we were there for them. But now we are cursed to hell (literally, they did that), because we are in favor of civil rights for all citizens including gays.

So much for purpose, connection, family heritage, community, and a safety net for hard times! In this political era, our family is by FAR not the only one to go through this. And you know what, we can't fix it. To put our families back together, we would have to hate our neighbors and repent of the sin of loving them. We would have to join their bigoted, backwater little churches. We would have to laud and venerate the president as a man of God. Mind you, we never hurt anyone. We weren't unkind or disrespectful. We didn't even argue or try to convince, we just lived our own convictions. Cast out.

I have never been suicidal and have very, very rarely been clinically depressed. I don't know why not - since childhood, there have been a lot of circumstances that should cause it, but I don't seem to be susceptible. But I have been very sad over the loss, this year. I have regained lost weight, tried to lose myself in activities to the detriment of home management and family goals, and fretted a lot about what would happen to everyone, now that a family network of NINETY people has been destroyed. I am now coming out the other side from all of that. I'm fine.

But If I were mentally unwell, or if I didn't feel "safe" at home with my dh and kids, and if I didn't believe I could invest more in other communities, and if I didn't think my children could do the same...or if I were also young and dependent...RELIGION would possibly help me to a disastrous end. 

So much for religion. It's not being religious that helps people. It's the connection and belonging that *may* arise from shared faith. 

 

I am so sorry your family chose this path. You made an important distinction: religiosity does not equal faith.

[Ausmumof3]

I think we underestimate physical factors.  More indoor work, lower levels of outdoor light exposure, shorter hours of sleep.  Less physical being in the same space as other people who we know well.  Maybe poorer quality nutrition.  They don't cause suicide but they do reduce our resilience to set backs by lowering mental health.  Of the suicides I've personally known one was relationship breakup plus alcohol (impulsive), one was reasons unknown and one was dealing and probably using drugs.  Of those I've known of second hand, one was rural with failing farm.

this was an interesting talk around our disconnectedness and mental health disorders.  

http://www.abc.net.au/radio/programs/conversations/conversations-hugh-mackay-2018/9749264

the obvious factors of financial strain, isolation, breakdown of relationships etc of course might be the cause but I think underlying that is the lack of protective factors like good solid friendships and plenty of time in nature and the power of sleep.

[Ausmumof3]

I also wonder a little about the timing of the increase.  I was a 99 graduate.  I don't know how accurate that year is for the statistics but we really were the "self esteem" generation.  It was the era of always being praised for everything you did as a child even when it wasn't great.  I don't feel that this builds healthy resilience to the real world where there isn't necessarily a "good job" or "fantastic effort" or "participation award" at the end of every task.  I think we are now learning about the importance of allowing kids to fail and get up again from failure.

[Liz CA]

10 minutes ago, Ausmumof3 said:

I also wonder a little about the timing of the increase.  I was a 99 graduate.  I don't know how accurate that year is for the statistics but we really were the "self esteem" generation.  It was the era of always being praised for everything you did as a child even when it wasn't great.  I don't feel that this builds healthy resilience to the real world where there isn't necessarily a "good job" or "fantastic effort" or "participation award" at the end of every task.  I think we are now learning about the importance of allowing kids to fail and get up again from failure.

 

This is interesting. So often I have wondered about this self-esteem and what it really means and where it used to come from. Good point IMHO.

[Mergath]

4 hours ago, EmseB said:

Speaking generally from my impression of this thread and the KS thread, it's interesting to me that many say that mental illness is just like cancer in a medical sense, but yet want to draw a bright line between choosing euthanasia as a cancer patient and killing oneself due to mental illness at home without doctor supervision. In the first case, it seems like choosing euthanasia is seen as a dignified choice, but opting to do it oneself because of depression or bipolar is the horrible, tragic version that leaves trauma in it's wake and shouldn't happen. I mean, what would people say if KS or AB had gone to their doc to ask to be euthanized because of their mental illness?

 

This is just my opinion, obviously, but I think there's a point where mental illness becomes terminal, where you've tried everything and finally the doctor says there's nothing left they can do. I don't think this is common- most people seem to respond to at least one treatment eventually, though it can take time to find it- but in a small number of cases, the mental illness is extremely treatment-resistant and extremely severe. And yes, there's quite a bit of fuzzy middle ground. That's why you can't just walk into an urgent care and request euthanasia from the doctor on call. You have to work with doctors long-term, try to get treatment, and be judged to be mentally competent (and yes, you can have a mental illness and be mentally competent; I have OCD, for example, but I'm not insane).

Don't get me wrong, though. Whether someone makes an informed decision after years of attempts at treatment and consultation with doctors, or impulsively commits suicide during a psychotic break, both were killed by their mental illness. Both were victims.

[Murphy101]

6 hours ago, Mergath said:

 

But... why would they include euthanasia? The point of tracking the number of suicides is to find trends in order to ultimately reduce the number. But a bipolar person taking their own life in the midst of a depressive episode is a completely different thing than, say, a person with advanced ALS utilizing euthanasia to avoid having to suffer through the end stages of the disease. If you're trying to find correlations between suicide as the result of mental illness and whatever might be causing an increase, including cases of euthanasia would mess up the data.

 

That’s a matter of opinion. 

I think it’s just state sanctioned suicide. It’s like the state telling people it agrees their life has no value.

The cause for their depression/mental illness, however validedly upseting it might be, doesn’t make the suicide somehow not suicide.

[Mergath]

1 hour ago, kdsuomi said:

Also, to the people who find it offensive when some people say that atheists can't have the same value on life as religious people, how is insinuating that religion caused you to be depressed any better? 

 

Because it's okay to talk about your own experiences but not okay to tell someone what their values are.

[Mergath]

2 minutes ago, Murphy101 said:

 

That’s a matter of opinion. 

I think it’s just state sanctioned suicide. It’s like the state telling people it agrees their life has no value.

The cause for their depression/mental illness, however validedly upseting it might be, doesn’t make the suicide somehow not suicide.

 

I'm not sure if you're talking about only mental illness here or any disease, but I think the state allowing people to choose a humane, painless death over a long, slow period of agony and degeneration shows that it does value life. 

[chiguirre]

2 hours ago, kdsuomi said:

 

I know one person who killed himself, with a gun, and I would never ever blame the gun.

I agree that a gun is an inanimate object but the owner is responsible for how it's stored and who has access to it. In the two IRL cases where I knew the person, they were both middle school aged boys who got their parent's gun. That's on the parent. Unbelievably, neither was charged because they were already "punished" enough. Until that mentality changes and we make people absolutely responsible for what happens with their gun, nothing will change.

[maize]

46 minutes ago, Mergath said:

 

This is just my opinion, obviously, but I think there's a point where mental illness becomes terminal, where you've tried everything and finally the doctor says there's nothing left they can do. I don't think this is common- most people seem to respond to at least one treatment eventually, though it can take time to find it- but in a small number of cases, the mental illness is extremely treatment-resistant and extremely severe. And yes, there's quite a bit of fuzzy middle ground. That's why you can't just walk into an urgent care and request euthanasia from the doctor on call. You have to work with doctors long-term, try to get treatment, and be judged to be mentally competent (and yes, you can have a mental illness and be mentally competent; I have OCD, for example, but I'm not insane).

Don't get me wrong, though. Whether someone makes an informed decision after years of attempts at treatment and consultation with doctors, or impulsively commits suicide during a psychotic break, both were killed by their mental illness. Both were victims.

 

A person can have OCD and be analytical about the OCD--it doesn't necessarily overcome their reasoning capacity.

The profoundly depressed people I have known have been literally incapable of clear thinking and reasoning. They have been "not themselves" in a frightening way--as if possessed by a demon.

Their perceptions and thought processes were warped beyond recognition. The same person in remission has nothing in common with the person in the grasp of the illness.

[Murphy101]

8 minutes ago, Mergath said:

 

I'm not sure if you're talking about only mental illness here or any disease, but I think the state allowing people to choose a humane, painless death over a long, slow period of agony and degeneration shows that it does value life. 

 

I disagree. To value life, means to value all life, even ones of deep sorrow or agony. All life has value. Not just lives without pain or without terrible loss, those have value too. 

[chiguirre]

1 minute ago, Murphy101 said:

 

I disagree. To value life, means to value all life, even ones of deep sorrow or agony. All life has value. Not just lives without pain or without terrible loss, those have value too. 

Who gets to decide whose life has value? The only person who should be deciding this is the person themselves if they are still competent. This is the most basic level of personal autonomy we can have. (If they're not competent, I agree that we shouldn't assume they find their life unbearable.)

[Rosie_0801]

7 minutes ago, Murphy101 said:

 

I disagree. To value life, means to value all life, even ones of deep sorrow or agony. All life has value. Not just lives without pain or without terrible loss, those have value too. 

 

On the other hand, to value life can mean to value someone's personal autonomy.

I acknowledge that other people hold shares in my life (for want of better phrasing,) but there's only one other person I consider to have voting rights.

[Tsuga]

6 hours ago, Scarlett said:

I am sorry.  Romanticizing was probably the wrong word.  But to kill yourself in the same spot your mom did....seems....like some sort of gesture. Solidarity? I don't know.  Is that what you mean by triggering? 

  I was with this young man's aunt the night before when he texted her, 'Aunty, you have always been a great aunt and I love you.'   She immediately felt something was off but she couldn't reach him....he lived out of state....the next morning she got the news.   

 

It's not solidarity. It's relief. Because you see them go and you know, truly know in your heart, that they are okay. And that it's better for them. And you think, "Okay, I can have that peace too. It will be okay. They died, I can see their family survived. I too could have that."

Depression hurts ALL THE TIME. It hurts everything and it hurts your brain. All the time. Some people are ultra high-functioning and can just keep going, but the pain is there.

When someone else takes their life, it's not solidarity. It's a reminder that there is an option.

[Roadrunner]

Williams suffered from dimentia and had serious health/mental problems.

The feeling of utter despair and overwhelming sadness, emotional pain that’s debilitating to the point that one takes his/her own life, those are all physiological. External events trigger this, but I bet a lot of this like many other diseases, genetic. 

I can’t imagine why the belief in a diety would change things whennin comes to mental illness. 

 

[Tsuga]

1 hour ago, Rosie_0801 said:

 

On the other hand, to value life can mean to value someone's personal autonomy.

I acknowledge that other people hold shares in my life (for want of better phrasing,) but there's only one other person I consider to have voting rights.

What I hear when I hear this is, "my right to keep my money is more important than your right to an education, because I don't believe people are worth as much as the abstract right to money and externally-guaranteed freedom from charity".

And I don't care how you frame it in your head, in the head of someone in need, that just sounds like, "Honestly I don't care about you as much as I care about my stuff."

Freedom from having to help others? I can't imagine enjoying that, but it's clear that it's a huge priority for many people. Freedom to keep money. While others literally die due to macroeconomic factors they had no part in. Enjoy that freedom--people are dying on our streets so people can be free of an income tax. I hope that money feels really dang good right now. Because it could have saved a life.

But rich people are freer. Yay.

I should point out that if we were hunter gatherers, it would make sense: one person keeps what they make. But the economy is so incredibly complex that anyone claiming to be 100% or even 50% or heck even 5% responsible for their lot in life--which is first and foremost dependent on the country in which they were born and then their postal code--is just plain ignorant. So much of what happens to us is luck. Hoarding luck because you want to claim freedom seems to me insane when you could literally feed babies with that good luck. So no, I don't agree that "value someone's personal autonomy" means to value their life. Freedom from charity =/= life.

[Carrie12345]

It’s after 1am and I can’t sleep, so I’ll just add that suicide isn’t always “just” a depression thing. The number of mental issues out there are astounding, and many of them cause suffering beyond the person afflicted. In many of those cases, whether in brief moments or more regularly, they know they’re hurting others. In addition to their own pain, they can carry that.

(Of course, “just” depression can lie and say the same without being the same.)

Not sure if that adds much to the conversation. Just trying to come down from several days of dealing with other people’s complex disorders and their impacts...

[Frances]

6 hours ago, Targhee said:

I don’t think the belief in God is the linchpin, but I’d like to ask you this: do you believe having a framework of belief/moral conduct/philosophy that is *external* of self is an important factor? I don’t mean a fear of committing sin/unloved by God, or a prescribed ritual, but a belief that certain acts or behaviors are more desireable because they lead to a better outcome. And that we look to outside sources (scripture, the life of an esteemed example, a contemporary mentor, a model in nature, etc) to help direct us towards that more desirable outcome.

Are these beliefs, in whatever form they take (theistic, nontheistic, non-religious, scientific, etc) stabilizing forces for ones mental health because they give life purpose and meaning, and often direction?

Would messages, intended this way or not, of absolute relativism where only the individual can determine what is truth/reality/right/good/the-point-of-it-all be so overwhelming for some as to contribute to their feelings of pointlessness?

These are sincere questions. They follow a line of what I am thinking, but I don’t know and am eager to hear others thoughts.

I think it’s hard for me to follow this line of reasoning because I don’t know anyone, religious or not, who does not believe “... that certain acts or behaviors are more desireable because they lead to a better outcome. And that we look to outside sources ... to help direct us toward that more desireable outcome.” I’ve really never encountered anyone who thinks only they can determine what is right/good, etc. I’m not saying these people don’t exist, but it’s outside of my realm of experience.

Personally, I don’t think about moral conduct any differently now than when I was religious. Most people seem to generally agree about the very basics of what is right and wrong. There are lots of grey areas, and even within and certainly between many religious groups there is often disagreement. I was raised Catholic, but was pretty shocked when I went out into the world as a young adult and experienced other Christians and even other Catholics following their beliefs in ways they were diametrically opposed to how I was raised. To this day, I can’t fathom that my brother and I came from the same home and see things so very differently. He always jokes that  I have far more in common with the beliefs and practices of his priest than he does. And he’s still a very involved practicing Catholic and I’m not.

I think studies have actually shown that people who view things in very black and white terms are happier. That makes sense to me, but it doesn’t necessarily make them better or more moral people. I think real love, compassion, and understanding often occur in the grey areas of life.

[Ausmumof3]

38 minutes ago, Tsuga said:

What I hear when I hear this is, "my right to keep my money is more important than your right to an education, because I don't believe people are worth as much as the abstract right to money and externally-guaranteed freedom from charity".

And I don't care how you frame it in your head, in the head of someone in need, that just sounds like, "Honestly I don't care about you as much as I care about my stuff."

Freedom from having to help others? I can't imagine enjoying that, but it's clear that it's a huge priority for many people. Freedom to keep money. While others literally die due to macroeconomic factors they had no part in. Enjoy that freedom--people are dying on our streets so people can be free of an income tax. I hope that money feels really dang good right now. Because it could have saved a life.

But rich people are freer. Yay.

I should point out that if we were hunter gatherers, it would make sense: one person keeps what they make. But the economy is so incredibly complex that anyone claiming to be 100% or even 50% or heck even 5% responsible for their lot in life--which is first and foremost dependent on the country in which they were born and then their postal code--is just plain ignorant. So much of what happens to us is luck. Hoarding luck because you want to claim freedom seems to me insane when you could literally feed babies with that good luck. So no, I don't agree that "value someone's personal autonomy" means to value their life. Freedom from charity =/= life.

Given Rosie's usual posting, I think you might be misunderstanding her?  She can probably clarify but I think when she talks about other people having shares on her life she is talking about people who love/care about her and will be affected by her decision making not financial implications of not wanting to pay tax to help other people?  I might have misunderstood though.

[Rosie_0801]

44 minutes ago, Tsuga said:

What I hear when I hear this is, "my right to keep my money is more important than your right to an education, because I don't believe people are worth as much as the abstract right to money and externally-guaranteed freedom from charity".

And I don't care how you frame it in your head, in the head of someone in need, that just sounds like, "Honestly I don't care about you as much as I care about my stuff."

Freedom from having to help others? I can't imagine enjoying that, but it's clear that it's a huge priority for many people. Freedom to keep money. While others literally die due to macroeconomic factors they had no part in. Enjoy that freedom--people are dying on our streets so people can be free of an income tax. I hope that money feels really dang good right now. Because it could have saved a life.

But rich people are freer. Yay.

I should point out that if we were hunter gatherers, it would make sense: one person keeps what they make. But the economy is so incredibly complex that anyone claiming to be 100% or even 50% or heck even 5% responsible for their lot in life--which is first and foremost dependent on the country in which they were born and then their postal code--is just plain ignorant. So much of what happens to us is luck. Hoarding luck because you want to claim freedom seems to me insane when you could literally feed babies with that good luck. So no, I don't agree that "value someone's personal autonomy" means to value their life. Freedom from charity =/= life.

 

I am amazed that my few words were able to inspire a story so radically different to anything I said, or ever do say.

[Carrie12345]

12 hours ago, Targhee said:

I don’t think the belief in God is the linchpin, but I’d like to ask you this: do you believe having a framework of belief/moral conduct/philosophy that is *external* of self is an important factor? I don’t mean a fear of committing sin/unloved by God, or a prescribed ritual, but a belief that certain acts or behaviors are more desireable because they lead to a better outcome. And that we look to outside sources (scripture, the life of an esteemed example, a contemporary mentor, a model in nature, etc) to help direct us towards that more desirable outcome.

Are these beliefs, in whatever form they take (theistic, nontheistic, non-religious, scientific, etc) stabilizing forces for ones mental health because they give life purpose and meaning, and often direction?

Would messages, intended this way or not, of absolute relativism where only the individual can determine what is truth/reality/right/good/the-point-of-it-all be so overwhelming for some as to contribute to their feelings of pointlessness?

These are sincere questions. They follow a line of what I am thinking, but I don’t know and am eager to hear others thoughts.

I'd posit that it's almost the direct opposite relationship - that a healthy mind allows one to look outward and find purpose/meaning/direction. Though, even there, if you were to consider cults, gangs, and other negative groups, you might call into question the mind of the seeker.

The people I'm intertwined with who are currently in crisis do not have a rational concept of "better outcome".   They reject society's definitions of "desirable outcome". To protect themselves from the reality of their actual outcomes, they convince themselves that examples/mentors/models, etc. are bad/wrong/stupid/full of themselves.  The only outside sources I've seen any of them accept are mottos like "You do you!", "If you love your kids, you're doing it right.", "Haters are just jealous!"  Ideas that pretend that all outcomes are equal.

[brehon]

6 hours ago, Tsuga said:

What I hear when I hear this is, "my right to keep my money is more important than your right to an education, because I don't believe people are worth as much as the abstract right to money and externally-guaranteed freedom from charity".

And I don't care how you frame it in your head, in the head of someone in need, that just sounds like, "Honestly I don't care about you as much as I care about my stuff."

Freedom from having to help others? I can't imagine enjoying that, but it's clear that it's a huge priority for many people. Freedom to keep money. While others literally die due to macroeconomic factors they had no part in. Enjoy that freedom--people are dying on our streets so people can be free of an income tax. I hope that money feels really dang good right now. Because it could have saved a life.

But rich people are freer. Yay.

I should point out that if we were hunter gatherers, it would make sense: one person keeps what they make. But the economy is so incredibly complex that anyone claiming to be 100% or even 50% or heck even 5% responsible for their lot in life--which is first and foremost dependent on the country in which they were born and then their postal code--is just plain ignorant. So much of what happens to us is luck. Hoarding luck because you want to claim freedom seems to me insane when you could literally feed babies with that good luck. So no, I don't agree that "value someone's personal autonomy" means to value their life. Freedom from charity =/= life.

I’m fairly certain Rosie didn’t use “shares” in its economic sense, rather it’s emotional sense. I don’t believe her post was about finances at all. 

[Pawz4me]

13 hours ago, Targhee said:

I don’t think the belief in God is the linchpin, but I’d like to ask you this: do you believe having a framework of belief/moral conduct/philosophy that is *external* of self is an important factor? I don’t mean a fear of committing sin/unloved by God, or a prescribed ritual, but a belief that certain acts or behaviors are more desireable because they lead to a better outcome. And that we look to outside sources (scripture, the life of an esteemed example, a contemporary mentor, a model in nature, etc) to help direct us towards that more desirable outcome.

Are these beliefs, in whatever form they take (theistic, nontheistic, non-religious, scientific, etc) stabilizing forces for ones mental health because they give life purpose and meaning, and often direction?

Would messages, intended this way or not, of absolute relativism where only the individual can determine what is truth/reality/right/good/the-point-of-it-all be so overwhelming for some as to contribute to their feelings of pointlessness?

These are sincere questions. They follow a line of what I am thinking, but I don’t know and am eager to hear others thoughts.

Like Frances posted above, I'm having a hard time answering this. It seems to me you're posing a false dichotomy--that one is either religious and relies on the laws/rules of that religion to be "good" or that one is not religious and therefore lives a totally self centered life. 

I don't know anyone who fits the latter description. I don't know anyone who comes close, nor can I imagine what it would look like. I think we'd need someone who was raised in complete isolation, who'd never been around a single other human who served as a role model, who'd never learned anything of history, philosophy, etc. I simply can't comprehend what the person might "look" like.

And I don't know anybody who totally fits the first description, either.

It seems to me that the norm is for humans to intuitively understand that certain acts (or refraining from certain acts) leads to a better outcome, both personally and for groups. Some of it is instinctual. Mothers, both human and animals, in general protect their babies because that's good for group survival. Protecting the young leads to better outcomes for all. Not killing or injuring others of our own kind in general leads to better outcomes for all. Helping others survive and thrive in general leads to better outcomes for all. Almost all species understand that on some level. On an individual level showing love, kindness and compassion to others leads to a better mental/emotional/psychological outcome for the person who exhibits those things as well as the receiver of them.  I don't think the vast majority of humans need any external, created by a higher power rules or laws to know these things. The Ethic of Reciprocity (what Christians commonly call the Golden Rule) appeared in its various forms across many philosophies and religions. Because it did occur so broadly across time, place and cultures/religions it's pretty obvious to me that it's a basic human concept, an idea that originates within us, not something handed down from on high (and particularly not from one God). 

I don't know that I accept the idea that we need moral beliefs to give our lives meaning or purpose. I get meaning in my life from caring for others--my family and friends and neighbors--and helping out dogs and cats in need. I don't think those things were taught to me. I think they're instinctual (I'm referring to myself here, not necessarily others). Those are all very meaningful and fulfilling to me, and are stabilizing things in my life that give me a great deal of purpose and mental peace. But I don't know that they have anything to do with morals.

[Bluegoat]

There's a pretty significant difference between feeling intuitively that certain things are good or bad, and having some kind of grounding in why things are good or bad, why it's true that things are good or bad.  I might feel that I should help people, I might even think it makes for a more enjoyable community, but that's really a subjective emotional state and preference.  Is it actually true in the same way gravity is true?

My dh once said to a friend of mine, before we were married, that he thought religion was nice because it gave kind of an organized sense of right and wrong to people.  To which my friend said, yeah, that's kind of irrelevant unless it's real.  Why would we think that human happiness, or kindness, etc, has value?  Why would the universe care about that?

People can think about these questions through philosophy, but that has never been done on a culture wide scale.  It's well outside the realm of science.  Art addresses it but not generally directly.  Questions of meaning have always been addressed through the religion and spiritual practice of the community, that's what it's for more than anything else.  

We've jettisoned the old forms to a large degree, without much replacing them, or even having a language to talk about it in many cases.  The source of human otological value in the positivist society is pretty mysterious.  

[maize]

52 minutes ago, Pawz4me said:

Like Frances posted above, I'm having a hard time answering this. It seems to me you're posing a false dichotomy--that one is either religious and relies on the laws/rules of that religion to be "good" or that one is not religious and therefore lives a totally self centered life. 

 

 

Targhee explicitly stated that the sort of external framework she was pondering was not necessarily a religious one, I don't see where you are getting the idea that she sees a dichotomy between religious and non-religious: "Are these beliefs, in whatever form they take (theistic, nontheistic, non-religious, scientific, etc) stabilizing forces for ones mental health because they give life purpose and meaning, and often direction?"

 

 

[Pawz4me]

24 minutes ago, maize said:

 

Targhee explicitly stated that the sort of external framework she was pondering was not necessarily a religious one, I don't see where you are getting the idea that she sees a dichotomy between religious and non-religious: "Are these beliefs, in whatever form they take (theistic, nontheistic, non-religious, scientific, etc) stabilizing forces for ones mental health because they give life purpose and meaning, and often direction?"

 

 

It's quite possible that I did. It's early, I haven't had anywhere near my needed intake of caffeine yet. And while I generally shy away from posting much personal stuff, I feel the need to say that as someone whose DH has been living with stage IV cancer for almost a year now, catching up on this thread this morning and reading some of the posts and thoughts being expressed regarding a person's right (or not) to choose euthanasia and the supposed "value" of suffering aren't doing good things to MY current mental health. I don't mean to use that as an excuse and I'm not hunting for sympathy, but . . . it's a pretty big thing that affects my thinking. What some (many?) are discussing as hypothetical or theoretical is my current reality (but of course I know others who are posting are going through trying times of their own).

But yes, I did take the overall implication of her post to be a religious versus not religious one. But note I did say (in so many words) multiple times that my opinion was just that--mine. I don't harbor any assumptions that I speak for large swaths of people or that my own thoughts/feelings are necessarily shared by others. I responded based on my interpretation of her post. And I'm allowed to do that. I do believe that Targhee's questions were sincere. Otherwise I wouldn't have bothered to reply.

[J-rap]

I'm kind of jumping in mid-way here -- I've read a lot of these posts but skimmed over parts.

So many scattered thoughts here.  I do think most people have the same idea -- they just describe it from within different frameworks.

It would be interesting to know how much suicide was really reported even 50 years ago.  One of my grandparents took their life at a young age.  He was well-known in his town, but the family and close group of friends were able to keep it a secret.  It was not discussed publicly, ever, or mentioned in newspapers (which it would have been today, given his job.)  Probably the hospital reported it as something other than suicide.  (In fact, I'd be interested in checking on that sometime.)  It was in the 1930's.

I do think there is far greater isolation these days, and less community.  There's an interesting book called Bowling Alone: The Collapse and Revival of American Community  that discusses this change.  Then on top of that, you have the internet which makes it seems like everyone else is doing so much more with their lives than you are, and where you might only get 5 likes for your post when someone else gets 500.

Sometimes I wonder too, with all of our extra "free time" we have these days, if minds that are prone to doing so have more room to wander.  I'm thinking especially of people with existential-type minds.  They don't have to spend their days figuring out basic survival, and have more time to get lost in their existential thoughts.  (I have personal experience with this with family members, which is why I bring it up.)

Life is also a lot more complicated these days with choices -- even in religion, something probably taken for granted before depending on the community you were born into.  It can feel overwhelming, and result in a blurrier life structure.

And of course mental illness is still as present as ever.  I wonder if in the past, people who were particularly emotionally sensitive or struggling with mental illness were too swept up in group life to consider doing anything independently like suicide.  Maybe it's easier to act on it now

As far as religion -- well I don't like organized religion much either.  But it can be one of any number of groups that provide community, and hopefully a loving and encouraging one.  But you can get that from a number of sources -- not just religion.

I'm a Christian but I tend to think of it more as a life philosophy, not an organized religion.  Believing that God is love and that His love for me is great and ever-present, and the meaning it gives to me as far as purpose (loving others), is pretty powerful for me and has helped me in some fragile life situations.  (AND I definitely believe that this philosophy can make an appearance through different means in this world -- different religions or philosophies, the "Golden Rule," meditation, etc., even if it comes from the same source.)  But even then, it's easy to get so lost in our minds and depression or whatever is going on that we forget all of that.  

I'm also not against assisted suicide with a terminal illness (in certain cases).  My dh has wondered from time to time if he would be better off dead, given his severe brain damage.  And honestly, I can see his point.  And if you are a believer in an after-life, then maybe that seems like not a bad option.  But, he is too present and logical minded to do anything like that, and I've convinced him (selfishly) not to consider it.  I've also read a lot about the Holocaust, and have always been struck by the number of times when people were at the end of what they could take in the concentration camps, and would run into the electric fences to end their lives.  And I'd think, that really isn't a bad option is it?  That sounds horrible to say, but I mean, if my own life was so filled with suffering and torture and hunger and the grief of seeing my own family and close friends dying and tortured every day, and I had the chance to not feel all of that anymore, then I just might do that myself.

But those are extreme cases.  I really do believe that most people who end up taking their lives would have a chance to live beautiful and meaningful lives if they could just get through their present hurdle and seek help.  I also believe that some people with particularly delicate or sensitive minds will probably always have a harder time making their way through life, but hopefully they will still discover enough beauty and love in their own lives that they will find life worthwhile.

One last thought I have, is that I wonder how much "happiness" has now become the end goal whereas before, it wasn't as much?   Before, maybe the goal was to survive and then get a job and a roof over your head, participate in a couple of community activities on weekends, and happiness was just something that came along with it from time to time?  But now happiness is the overriding goal?  That's an interesting thought to me actually, because a lot has changed in my own life in the past 10 years, to the point where some of the things I once thought were necessary to be happy are no longer available to me.  But there is still an inner-joy and contentedness that is present never-the-less, and where does that come from?  Lucky genes?  I don't know.  The mind is so complex.

Well, sorry for jumping around so much.  There's just so much to think about in all of this!!

[Bluegoat]

38 minutes ago, OKBud said:

Three people on my facebook this morning posted something to the effect that many of these celebrities of late were with loved ones, making plans and being even-keeled and happy and normal just a few hours before they killed themselves, so we should be "checking up on" our friends even the happy ones. This does not make any sense to me-- they all clearly DID have people spending time with them, loving and supporting them. But they're all dead now. This false sense of ... ugh something. Of accountability. Of... POWER, even... to stop something tragic and unpredictable...lt isn't going to help anyone.  OBVIOUSLY we should all be being excellent friends, excellent sisters and mothers and daughters and wives, to the fullest extent that we are capable at any given moment. But that's not what these people are saying. They are saying we must be constantly vigilant and almost assume anyone any time could be about to kill themselves. 

[apologies for the personal anecdotal aside] I have PTSD and I am not suicidal. If the trusted, beloved people around me had treated me as if I were on the verge of suicide when I was at my worst, even though I was saying aloud that I wasn't, I can not even express to you how incredibly harmful that would have been to me during a very fragile time.

Following that same vein of thought, to the people talking about physician-assisted suicide for intractable depression: I don't have much to add there except to say that the first two psychiatrists I saw for PTSD told me I was suicidal. And I can not stress enough that I absolutely, positively was not. So I personally would not put any stock whatsoever into the idea that if someone has been seeing a professional for a long time and their depression is unrelenting etc, and their dedicated medical professionals agree that it's valid and healthy for them to go the planned suicide route, then it probably is. Because psychiatrists are truly just other people, too. Some are excellent, some are broken. 

 

ETA-- I very much agree with everyone who has said that we collectively need to accept both that sometimes life is really, really hard (so don't kill yourself if you can avoid it). Also with everyone talking about physical/seasonal/etc factors. 

 

Oh, I saw this same sort of post, from someone I know who often advocates around mental illness.

I thought it was really dumb on a few levels - obviously if their problems were so hidden from people close to them, they were hiding it on purpose, for one thing.

The other was the quotes themselves though, implying no one had a clue.  Maybe the public did not know Williams was struggling so much at that moment, but everyone knew he had in the past, and his family did know.  In the case of Spade it had her dad saying she was fine - her sister and husband clearly knew she was not at all fine.  And like I said in the other thread, Bourdain looked like a mess to me, someone who hasn't watched him much, he was drunk of high pretty much every time I saw him in something.  That level of drug use is not indicative of just being a fun guy, especially at his age.

So people knowing didn't help, and they were able to hide it from others.  How is "reaching out" supposed to accomplish anything?

ETA - you might find this interesting, re psychiatrists and their value at deciding who should be eligible for assisted dying.

[umsami]

20 minutes ago, Bluegoat said:

 

Oh, I saw this same sort of post, from someone I know who often advocates around mental illness.

I thought it was really dumb on a few levels - obviously if their problems were so hidden from people close to them, they were hiding it on purpose, for one thing.

The other was the quotes themselves though, implying no one had a clue.  Maybe the public did not know Williams was struggling so much at that moment, but everyone knew he had in the past, and his family did know.  In the case of Spade it had her dad saying she was fine - her sister and husband clearly knew she was not at all fine.  And like I said in the other thread, Bourdain looked like a mess to me, someone who hasn't watched him much, he was drunk of high pretty much every time I saw him in something.  That level of drug use is not indicative of just being a fun guy, especially at his age.

So people knowing didn't help, and they were able to hide it from others.  How is "reaching out" supposed to accomplish anything?

ETA - you might find this interesting, re psychiatrists and their value at deciding who should be eligible for assisted dying.

Feel it's important to say, that you can know a loved one needs help....desperately needs help in fact.  Getting them to get help is another story.  Many are unwilling to do a Baker Act type hold on a loved one.... and even if one does that, no guarantees.   Psychiatric meds for depression have varying effective levels.  Electroconvulsive therapy is actually more effective, but not used much anymore....although may make a comeback.  (And no, it's not like it was portrayed in "One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest" or other movies.   Ketamine and other psychedelics are more effective, but not easily prescribed these days.  Finding a psychiatrist who is taking patients can be difficult.   Many therapists these days don't accept insurance, which puts another barrier.  

[ktgrok]

11 minutes ago, umsami said:

Feel it's important to say, that you can know a loved one needs help....desperately needs help in fact.  Getting them to get help is another story.  Many are unwilling to do a Baker Act type hold on a loved one.... and even if one does that, no guarantees.   Psychiatric meds for depression have varying effective levels.  Electroconvulsive therapy is actually more effective, but not used much anymore....although may make a comeback.  (And no, it's not like it was portrayed in "One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest" or other movies.   Ketamine and other psychedelics are more effective, but not easily prescribed these days.  Finding a psychiatrist who is taking patients can be difficult.   Many therapists these days don't accept insurance, which puts another barrier.  

I just heard a story on NPR about ketamine, and that it may be on the market as a nasal spray in about a year or so. I think it sounds pretty promising. 

[Mergath]

53 minutes ago, Ktgrok said:

I just heard a story on NPR about ketamine, and that it may be on the market as a nasal spray in about a year or so. I think it sounds pretty promising. 

 

I saw a video about that on Youtube. Buzzfeed, I think. They interviewed a man with severe depression because he'd lost both of his sons to suicide. It was heartbreaking. I don't think I could survive something like that. Anyway, he was getting ketamine infusions every six weeks and it had made a huge difference. I wonder if that would help with anxiety?