Suicide is OK

Novella

Deleted User wrote: »

Which is very reasonable... but lets face it, when you're in pain or emotional distress etc then you're not really interested in being reasonable. After all, you get reasonable comments from everyone else who has some sort of opinion on how you should live your life, and then they go back to living completely different lives.

I was diagnosed early in life with an extreme form of essential tremor (Shakes). On the face of things, not a particularly harsh disorder. And yet every action was a reminder of how I was different, and most people took notice. My whole body shakes in general, but it really becomes noticeable when I perform some action like putting sugar in tea or lifting anything. In my teens this brought about isolation, and bullying (I was put in hospital on three different occasions simply because I shake.. ). And I learned a way of coping with things, but the extent of my shakes gradually got worse over the years, until the most normal of activities became an extreme chore. And I knew from my consultants that it would get worse. The beta blockers reduced the shakes slightly, but the side effects were horrendous. But apart from diets and the drugs, they had no alternatives to offer.

The point I wish to make is that I heard reasonable comments from everyone about how I should live my life with this disorder. I just wanted it to end, and yet, I knew they wouldn't end. They'd only get worse, and I had no assurance from anyone that life would get any better. And so I seriously contemplated ending it all.

Luckily enough for me, I didn't. But it wasn't in the belief that things would get better. I just didn't want to die a Virgin. Sometimes its the most simplistic of reasons that keeps you going.

Oh god, yeah, I was really only referring to irish_bob's bit about homeless people being better off dead as opposed to in a doorway with a bottle of vodka, or whatever it was that he said. I just meant I'd hope that if I were homeless, I'd still have the will to live as I'd want to make my situation better and not just give up there and then so as to be more respected, or whatever.

I completely understand how difficult it is to be reasonable when placed under huge emotional strain etc.

Hope you're doing okay now though.

Common as...

irishh_bob wrote: »

i for one believe those people would have been better off had they committed suicide instead of living such a degrading and humiliating life , instead of simply being remembered as someone who took their own lives , now they will be remembered as down and out beggars

Maybe your just messing about but on reading a few of your posts it seems very much as as though your someone thats very concerned with the toughts others/society will have about you. Why?

Im not trying to put you down or attack im just interested.

CDfm

irishh_bob wrote: »

we all die eventually anyway so i ask you , which would you perfer , die young ( possibley by your own hand ) at 20 or spend the next thirty years lieing in a doorway with nothing to keep you warm but a smelly blanket and a bottle of vodka

Why vodka and why do you assume all homeless people are homeless through drink related issues.

Why people become homeless

While people from all walks of life have become homeless, general the experiences that lead to homelessness are underpinned by poverty.
For many years homelessness was seen as a failure by the individual, it is now commonly accepted that homelessness is a structural as opposed to a personal problem.
Many of the people who are currently homeless are in this situation because of a failure of public services to adequately meet their needs in the past. Many have experienced various forms of institutionalisation over the lives. Others have experienced family breakdown or mental ill health, and there have been insufficient responses to ensure that the person does not become homeless. Many people when they first 'present' as homeless have little other than a housing need, which with appropriate support, could be address immediately.
The causes of homelessness can be broken down into risk factors: general societal factors that can make individuals/groups more vulnerable to homelessness and trigger factors: which are specific point in time events which provoke homelessness.
The 'individual' risk factors associated with homelessness include:

• poverty
• unemployment
• family disputes and breakdown
• sexual or physical abuse
• a background of residential care
• experience of prison or the armed forces
• drug or alcohol misuse; school exclusion
• and poor mental or physical health

The specific events which 'trigger' homelessness include:

• leaving the parental home following disputes
• marital or relationship breakdown
• eviction
• widowhood
• discharge from the armed forces;
• leaving care
• leaving prison
• and a sharp deterioration in mental health or an increase in alcohol or drug misuse.

Fitzpatrick and Klinker (2000)


http://www.simon.ie/index.php?page=why-people-become-homeless

Add to this the very inadequete coordination of service provision between welfare agencies such as housing departments and welfare payment departments and the topical and amateur provision of services by charities and you have a better idea.

The numbers are not on the huge scale and the individuals are identifyable enough.

So the provision of welfare services is not adequete or professional enough or ineffective..

thier are worse things than death , the important thing is what legacy you leave , living as a bum aint much of a legacy and its something that wont be forgotten about you either

Talk about legacies is great but I do not know what point you are making, ordinary people with ordinary problems commit suicide. .
.

What you are saying is that if a person becomes homeless thru,relationship breakdown and lack of financial resourses and are unable to adjust to that situation that they are better off dead.

Studies show that there is a higher incidence of suicide in young middle aged homeless people

http://www.springerlink.com/content/yupxn2xyxedm6j9l/

Unfortunately, society accepts this too (or at least the state on behalf of society does)

irishh_bob

Common as... wrote: »

Maybe your just messing about but on reading a few of your posts it seems very much as as though your someone thats very concerned with the toughts others/society will have about you. Why?

Im not trying to put you down or attack im just interested.

the vast majority care deeply about thier public immage , only spoofers claim not to care what others think of them

CDfm

irishh_bob wrote: »

the vast majority care deeply about thier public immage , only spoofers claim not to care what others think of them

maslows hierarchy of need and add a bit of health care and most probs are solveable

Common as...

irishh_bob wrote: »

the vast majority care deeply about thier public immage , only spoofers claim not to care what others think of them

I agree that most people do care myself included. But you seem very o.k with that.
For example most people drink (alcohal) but in an effort to better themselves and hopefully live a happier life,at the beginning of 2011 many people will have goals to drink less or maybe not anything for 2011 and they may or may not succeed but the thing is they are trying. You could say the same about weightloss!!
I believe that many people try to better themselves by trying not to be concerned with such vien concerns of course this is a very hard thing to do but people do try!
You seem like your worried about keeping up with the Jones's you know you are worried about this but you seem to think of it as a worthwhile concern

metrovelvet

irishh_bob wrote: »

the vast majority care deeply about thier public immage , only spoofers claim not to care what others think of them

You have a point. Thats why you see people picking their nose when they think no one is looking, like in their car or in front of their car, but they dont do it in front of other people.

Im not sure how this point connects though.

CDfm

metrovelvet wrote: »

You have a point. Thats why you see people picking their nose when they think no one is looking, like in their car or in front of their car, but they dont do it in front of other people.

Im not sure how this point connects though.

Its not the picking that embaresses people -its the eating !!!!!

sbsquarepants

Deleted User wrote: »

Bit of a stretch, don't you think? Personally, I think its more likely that she didn't foresee the emotional problems she'd face while the children were there...

Regardless, we're making wild assumptions. (If she was your mother, then I'd withdraw the wild assumptions on your part)..

No she wasn't my mother, or related at all in fact. It's not that much of a stretch to think she planned to take the kids with her, she was the type of person who would regularly use her kids as a weapon.

Deleted User wrote: »

Its obvious you've never had to contemplate ending your life before if you're willing to draw these sort of comparisons. ..

I've had low points, same as everyone else, but thankfully i've never been suicidal

Deleted User wrote: »

The only difference here is that in the case of the mother, her children found her dead. Whereas for your cousin, it was strangers who had to deal with his death initially.
IF the mother had been found by someone other than the children, would you have such issues about her death? ..

Yes, i'd feel slightly differently, as i've said - we owe our kids a duty of care that far outweighs the one we owe random strangers

Deleted User wrote: »

I'm curious.... how long were they married, how old were the children, did she work, and what did the dad do during all of this? Was she a decent mother at any stage before her suicide?..

They were never married, but they were together for roughly 14 years, before she dumped him for another man, it was when this relationship went sour about 6 or 8 months later that she killed herself. She was at best a disinterested mother, not cruel or abusive or anything but the kids always seemed an inconvenience to her, she wouldn't be what i would call a good mother, absolutely not! Kids were roughly 5 and 9 at the time, it was just before christmas (not that there is ever a good time, i suppose)

Deleted User wrote: »

Frankly, I feel that the people who declare blankly that there is no excuse/reason for suicide, just can't appreciate that other people have way harder lives than they do..

Of course some people have harder lives than others, for example kids that find their mother hanging from the bannisters, they have terrible lives. Maybe i'm just being cold or heartless, but as far as i'm concerned they and their father who has struggled to repair their childhood ever since are the victims here, not the mother!

sbsquarepants

sbsquarepants wrote: »

No she wasn't my mother, or related at all in fact. It's not that much of a stretch to think she planned to take the kids with her, she was the type of person who would regularly use her kids as a weapon.

Well, yes, it is indeed a stretch considering the jump you made from your original post about this person, right through to making the accusation that she had thought about taking her children with her. Its a wild assumption based on... external observations.

I've had low points, same as everyone else, but thankfully i've never been suicidal

This is not about "low" points... Hence the reason I point out your lack of understanding in making such a comparison.

Yes, i'd feel slightly differently, as i've said - we owe our kids a duty of care that far outweighs the one we owe random strangers

Ahh yes, it doesn't matter if its strangers kids who find the body strewn all over the tracks or possibly see the blood sprayed across the front of the train as it rumbles in to get cleaned.

They were never married, but they were together for roughly 14 years, before she dumped him for another man, it was when this relationship went sour about 6 or 8 months later that she killed herself. She was at best a disinterested mother, not cruel or abusive or anything but the kids always seemed an inconvenience to her, she wouldn't be what i would call a good mother, absolutely not! Kids were roughly 5 and 9 at the time, it was just before christmas (not that there is ever a good time, i suppose)

What is your relationship to these people...? Friend? Neighbor? Stranger?

I'm really curious to know where you're getting such insight into their lives.. In any case, i'd still very interested to know the support available to the woman while the children were there... you seem to leave that kind of info out.

Of course some people have harder lives than others, for example kids that find their mother hanging from the bannisters, they have terrible lives. Maybe i'm just being cold or heartless, but as far as i'm concerned they and their father who has struggled to repair their childhood ever since are the victims here, not the mother!

Yes, I got that. You have your own agenda that suicides are selfish demented twats and that's all that can matter. After all, there are no possible excuses for their last action.

sbsquarepants

Deleted User wrote: »

Well, yes, it is indeed a stretch considering the jump you made from your original post about this person, right through to making the accusation that she had thought about taking her children with her. Its a wild assumption based on... external observations. .

It's an assumption yes, but not a wild one, and having discussed it over the years with other people who knew those involved, not one i'm alone in making. No, i can't ever know for sure, but it's what i believe.

Deleted User wrote: »

Ahh yes, it doesn't matter if its strangers kids who find the body strewn all over the tracks or possibly see the blood sprayed across the front of the train as it rumbles in to get cleaned..

You're missing my point (deliberately, i think). I'm not defending my cousins actions as somehow brave or noble, or without consequence for those who found him, or his family. I'm just saying we dont "owe" strangers as much as we owe family - and we quite obviously don't, no matter what way you care to twist it.

Deleted User wrote: »

What is your relationship to these people...? Friend? Neighbor? Stranger?I'm really curious to know where you're getting such insight into their lives.

The father has been a very close friend of mine for many, many years. I'm not just repeating rumours or hearsay, anything i've said came straight from the horses mouth.

Deleted User wrote: »

.. In any case, i'd still very interested to know the support available to the woman while the children were there... you seem to leave that kind of info out. .

I'm not quite sure what you mean by support, she had her family, she had her friends, she had all the normal supports any other person has. She had a job, a house, a car, she wasn't a drug addict or anything like that. I'm not sure if that answers your question, as i said i don't quite understand it.

Deleted User wrote: »

Yes, I got that. You have your own agenda that suicides are selfish demented twats and that's all that can matter. After all, there are no possible excuses for their last action.

I've got an opinion, not an agenda, i think if anything you are the one with the agenda! And my opinion is not what you've written here. Obviously anybody who kills themselves is a deeply unhappy person, but that does not give you the right to destroy your kids lives, it just doesn't. The very least she owed those kids was to go somewhere else and do it, or to leave them go to their father like they were supposed to. To force them to be part of it they way she did is as i have repeatedly said, selfish and unforgiveable. I'm actually amazed that anybody could argue it wasn't to tell you the truth
That's just my personal opinion on that particular case, no more and no less.

sbsquarepants

sbsquarepants wrote: »

It's an assumption yes, but not a wild one, and having discussed it over the years with other people who knew those involved, not one i'm alone in making. No, i can't ever know for sure, but it's what i believe.

Its an assumption based on nothing concrete. Otherwise you would have mentioned previous attempts to harm the children by the mother, or other signs of instability...

You're missing my point (deliberately, i think). I'm not defending my cousins actions as somehow brave or noble, or without consequence for those who found him, or his family. I'm just saying we dont "owe" strangers as much as we owe family - and we quite obviously don't, no matter what way you care to twist it.

Twist it? I'm not twisting anything. Your cousin chose to throw himself under a train, whereas this mother chose to hang herself while her children were in the house. You cousins action moved away from the home where strangers would be affected by his death. And honestly, I can't imagine too many more gruesome or messy deaths than being killed by a train.

You're seem to be trying to make the distinction that being found dead by strangers isn't as bad as being found by family or children. It is. Both deaths are rather awful considering the state of the bodies after death regardless of who finds them.

[When I was 9 years old, myself and my cousin, found a dead body on a beach in Wexford. The Man had been dead for quite some time.. so decay and bites from fish. Not exactly a nice sight by any means. Unlikely to have been a suicide, rather an accident, but does that matter?]

The father has been a very close friend of mine for many, many years. I'm not just repeating rumours or hearsay, anything i've said came straight from the horses mouth.

And considering this is what the father is saying, doesn't it suggest that he had some rather large issues of his own, and probably had some influence over the conditions that encouraged the mother to commit suicide. After all, most people make an effort (especially when they're not warranted) to say nice things about the dead. Instead, you (and the father) are seeking to label massive blame on the mother.

I'm not suggesting any foul play here. I'm just not accepting your laying the blame solely on the mother...

I'm not quite sure what you mean by support, she had her family, she had her friends, she had all the normal supports any other person has. She had a job, a house, a car, she wasn't a drug addict or anything like that. I'm not sure if that answers your question, as i said i don't quite understand it.

Think about it this way... if you were a parent and working, what kind of support would you need to help you in the face of stress? perhaps financial problems, perhaps relationship problems with the father, perhaps lack of supervision of the children when she needed free time, etc etc.

Now, add on emotional problems, and consider what support would be needed... was it there? Was there anything close to it being available?

I've got an opinion, not an agenda, i think if anything you are the one with the agenda! And my opinion is not what you've written here. Obviously anybody who kills themselves is a deeply unhappy person, but that does not give you the right to destroy your kids lives, it just doesn't. The very least she owed those kids was to go somewhere else and do it, or to leave them go to their father like they were supposed to. To force them to be part of it they way she did is as i have repeatedly said, selfish and unforgiveable. I'm actually amazed that anybody could argue it wasn't to tell you the truth
That's just my personal opinion on that particular case, no more and no less.

My agenda is that I don't follow the simple set up you provided about this mothers case... Franky, its so unsympathetic that it sounds untrue. Perhaps its what you have been told, and you're just repeating such, but its such a dreadful story that I'm suprised that you don't write anything forgiving of the woman. Its just not natural.

metrovelvet

sbsquarepants wrote: »

No she wasn't my mother, or related at all in fact. It's not that much of a stretch to think she planned to take the kids with her, she was the type of person who would regularly use her kids as a weapon.





I've had low points, same as everyone else, but thankfully i've never been suicidal





Yes, i'd feel slightly differently, as i've said - we owe our kids a duty of care that far outweighs the one we owe random strangers





They were never married, but they were together for roughly 14 years, before she dumped him for another man, it was when this relationship went sour about 6 or 8 months later that she killed herself. She was at best a disinterested mother, not cruel or abusive or anything but the kids always seemed an inconvenience to her, she wouldn't be what i would call a good mother, absolutely not! Kids were roughly 5 and 9 at the time, it was just before christmas (not that there is ever a good time, i suppose)




Of course some people have harder lives than others, for example kids that find their mother hanging from the bannisters, they have terrible lives. Maybe i'm just being cold or heartless, but as far as i'm concerned they and their father who has struggled to repair their childhood ever since are the victims here, not the mother!

Sorry where was the father during the years when she was alive?

I know a woman who had a great career, a supportive husband, and two beautiful kids, on the surface had it all. But it tore her in a million different directions and she ended up at the bottom of the Thames.

sbsquarepants

metrovelvet wrote: »

Sorry where was the father during the years when she was alive?

I know a woman who had a great career, a supportive husband, and two beautiful kids, on the surface had it all. But it tore her in a million different directions and she ended up at the bottom of the Thames.

They were together untill about 6 or 8 months before her death, she basically threw him out to be with another guy, that relationship went belly up and that was the straw that broke the camels back, so to speak. As i've said before she was a disinterested mother, the father done everything for and with the kids, he really is an exceptional father, she couldn't really be bothered. She was more of a ladette, not that there is anything wrong with that, takes all sorts and all that.
I fully accept the point that what looks like a great life to others may well be hell to the person living it (Kurt Cobain for example)

Klaz, maybe i'm saying it wrong or something but my opinion is not a million miles from yours. Of course the girl deserves sympathy, it's sad when anybody feels their life is not worth living, i'm not arguing that, i'm arguing that there was no need whatsoever to involve her children the way she did, and there wasn't, end of story. She deliberately caused them extra suffering and that is a horrible thing for any mother to do. Again i state my case that she owed them more than that, as a mother she failed in her responsibility to protect her kids and she failed them quite spectacularly, and again, to my mind, that overshadows everything else.
All the people involved in this whole mess deserve sympathy, but the kids and the father deserve the most, that's all i'm saying. I personally have never seen anything like the devestation she left behind, my cousins case didn't cause anything like it and that is the truth. The idea that she should be completely absolved of any blame, as if she had no hand, act or part in it, just doesn't wash with me and it never will. When you have kids in particular, you owe them, that's an absolute, we owe our kids better than leaving them to find our bodies hanging from the rafters, i will not ever accept that leaving them to find her was in any way forgiveable.
I get the whole thing about not speaking i'll of the dead and all that, but you don't know who i'm talking about and either does anyone else, therefore i can be more candid than i would otherwise be for fear of causing offence. I honestly hope i'm not offending anyone here, if i am i apologise.

metrovelvet

sbsquarepants wrote: »

They were together untill about 6 or 8 months before her death, she basically threw him out to be with another guy, that relationship went belly up and that was the straw that broke the camels back, so to speak. As i've said before she was a disinterested mother, the father done everything for and with the kids, he really is an exceptional father, she couldn't really be bothered. She was more of a ladette, not that there is anything wrong with that, takes all sorts and all that.
I fully accept the point that what looks like a great life to others may well be hell to the person living it (Kurt Cobain for example)

Klaz, maybe i'm saying it wrong or something but my opinion is not a million miles from yours. Of course the girl deserves sympathy, it's sad when anybody feels their life is not worth living, i'm not arguing that, i'm arguing that there was no need whatsoever to involve her children the way she did, and there wasn't, end of story. She deliberately caused them extra suffering and that is a horrible thing for any mother to do. Again i state my case that she owed them more than that, as a mother she failed in her responsibility to protect her kids and she failed them quite spectacularly, and again, to my mind, that overshadows everything else.
All the people involved in this whole mess deserve sympathy, but the kids and the father deserve the most, that's all i'm saying. I personally have never seen anything like the devestation she left behind, my cousins case didn't cause anything like it and that is the truth. The idea that she should be completely absolved of any blame, as if she had no hand, act or part in it, just doesn't wash with me and it never will. When you have kids in particular, you owe them, that's an absolute, we owe our kids better than leaving them to find our bodies hanging from the rafters, i will not ever accept that leaving them to find her was in any way forgiveable.
I get the whole thing about not speaking i'll of the dead and all that, but you don't know who i'm talking about and either does anyone else, therefore i can be more candid than i would otherwise be for fear of causing offence. I honestly hope i'm not offending anyone here, if i am i apologise.

I do think suicide can be a very angry act. I know a guy in college who saw is mother hanging from her bedroom ceiling in his grandmother's house, the house she grew up in. Its hard not to judge her or be angry with her for that, I will sympathise with you there. I do think there is a selfishness in it, but in the same way in a sinking ship peoples desperation drives them, clouding their judgment into selfish acts. She may have convinced herself her kids are better off without her,especially if she felt or people were telling her she was a lousy mother. There is logic in it. Who knows what went in her head, sometimes parental duty can only take you so far, if you feel a joyless life ahead of you and you think all your kids will see from you is misery and despair.

What does it mean to forgive? I think it will be hard to until you can take the imagintive leap to the kind of self loathing it would take a mother to leave her kids. If she couldn't cope she should given the kids to your friend for custody and bear the brunt of being judged for abandoning her kids. Maybe that was too much to face too.

the_syco

I view it as selfish and/or cowardly, but I realize that most do it as they see no other way out. Most don't seek help with their problems, and end their temporary problems with a permanent solution.

For the sake of this discussion, how does the OP view the japanese suicide, oh how they do it to keep their honour? Seems to be rather high figures of single male japanese who kill themselves in their own apartment.

Dymo

Just after coming across this thread,

Can people just not see that suicide is a form of release for the person, its not being selfish its about letting go. The people left behind will probably be hurt at first in the end its the right thing to do. When I see or hear a report of suicide I think that person is now free and don't have to go through the mental torment that they must of being going through. People don't recognize a suicidal person because the persona given off can be the opposite to they way that person feels and I guess that's where this selfish idea comes from.

Stress, Anxiety, that feeling when you get up and know things can't get better and your right all the time except for a few brief moments but sooner or later your going to feel all the pressure back on again. The flashing thoughts during the day but knowing that one action will solve all that, no more worry and beating your self up. Maybe mental illness has something to do with it but they might not feel its an illness because surely an illness can have a cure its just the way life is to them.
I don't buy into this thing "things can only get better" they haven't for the last couple of years of no signs of them ever getting better. Seriously what are the downsides of suicide?

sbsquarepants

Dymo wrote: »

Just after coming across this thread,

Can people just not see that suicide is a form of release for the person, its not being selfish its about letting go.

That depends on the circumstance. The letting go part is obvious, but when you are failing people who depend on you, kids in particular, then that's selfish too. Yes, the person committing suicide gets released from their problems, but at the expense of creating new ones for their families, how can that be anything but selfishness?

Dymo wrote: »

I don't buy into this thing "things can only get better" they haven't for the last couple of years of no signs of them ever getting better. Seriously what are the downsides of suicide?

The downside is the suffering inflicted on those left behind. Anybody comitting suicide (barr those who are seriously mentally ill) know that someone is going to suffer for their actions, they must disregard this to proceed, now if there is a more dictionary perfect meaning of selfishness than disregarding the suffering of others to suit yourself, i have never heard it!

There could be a million different reasons why someone would do this but at it's core it is selfish, by it's very definition.

metrovelvet

sbsquarepants wrote: »

That depends on the circumstance. The letting go part is obvious, but when you are failing people who depend on you, kids in particular, then that's selfish too. Yes, the person committing suicide gets released from their problems, but at the expense of creating new ones for their families, how can that be anything but selfishness?





The downside is the suffering inflicted on those left behind. Anybody comitting suicide (barr those who are seriously mentally ill) know that someone is going to suffer for their actions, they must disregard this to proceed, now if there is a more dictionary perfect meaning of selfishness than disregarding the suffering of others to suit yourself, i have never heard it!

There could be a million different reasons why someone would do this but at it's core it is selfish, by it's very definition.

Becauase they have convinced themselves that what they are doing is better for their kids. You, yourself said she was a bad mother, maybe she believed that too, maybe she heard it often enough that she identified with the roll ascribed to her.

optogirl

alex73 wrote: »

Suicide is the most lame excuse !,,, Egoistic and selfish. YOUR pain may end... but all those around you start. maybe some people are really mentally ill.... who knows...
Father i knew took his life leaving wife and kids.... Poor women,

SUICIDE IS SELFISH SELFISH SELFISH!!

A lame excuse for what exactly? You are wrong - people who commit suicide are at an incredibly low, dark point that others could never even contemplate. It is not a decision taken lightly and how you could possibly say it it egotistical is beyond me. There is no glory in it. Somebody who commits suicide genuinely believes, however wrongly, that the world is better off without them. You are selfish selfish selfish if you cannot have any empathy for people who have reached this kind of low.

CDfm

Dymo wrote: »

Just after coming across this thread,

Can people just not see that suicide is a form of release for the person, its not being selfish its about letting go. The people left behind will probably be hurt at first in the end its the right thing to do. When I see or hear a report of suicide I think that person is now free and don't have to go through the mental torment that they must of being going through. People don't recognize a suicidal person because the persona given off can be the opposite to they way that person feels and I guess that's where this selfish idea comes from.

You need to take each individual case.

I heard of a local guy who had debt problems with a fairly good business who committed suicide last week.He wasnt in any imminent problems etc and the most pressing problem was paying his tax return. Nothing criminal and he had not defrauded anybody -just life stuff and recession.

Nice wife, kids etc.

Stress, Anxiety, that feeling when you get up and know things can't get better and your right all the time except for a few brief moments but sooner or later your going to feel all the pressure back on again. The flashing thoughts during the day but knowing that one action will solve all that, no more worry and beating your self up. Maybe mental illness has something to do with it but they might not feel its an illness because surely an illness can have a cure its just the way life is to them.
I don't buy into this thing "things can only get better" they haven't for the last couple of years of no signs of them ever getting better. Seriously what are the downsides of suicide?

The downside may have been bankruptsy but he would not have lost the family home and still would have had his career and qualifications and could have started off again maybe in the UK where the bankrupsy laws are not as draconian.

Things may not get a whole lot better but when a person gets used to changed circumstances they may not be bleak, tolerable, solveable and the person happier.

Lots of circumstances are temporary.

The urge to commit suicide may be not being able to see the wood for the trees or being too focused on the downside.

A person is worth more than that .

sbsquarepants

metrovelvet wrote: »

Becauase they have convinced themselves that what they are doing is better for their kids. You, yourself said she was a bad mother, maybe she believed that too, maybe she heard it often enough that she identified with the roll ascribed to her.

I can accept that somebody could be so low, that they might consider that their kids would be better off without them, i can see that. In a sad kind of way , it is possible that these people believe they are doing the right thing by killing themselves. But i absolutely cannot accept that anybody could convince themselves, no matter what their circumstances, that their own kids best interest was served by finding their mothers dead body a couple of weeks prior to christmas. There is no positive spin that can be put on something like that, it was cruel and it was selfish and above all it was totally unnecessary.
And as for identifying with the roll ascribed to her, no, i don't agree. If anyone ever said she was a bad mother to her (which, apart from her and the father arguing over her lack of interest, i don't know if anyone ever did), it would have been because she was one, not vice versa.

metrovelvet

sbsquarepants wrote: »

I can accept that somebody could be so low, that they might consider that their kids would be better off without them, i can see that. In a sad kind of way , it is possible that these people believe they are doing the right thing by killing themselves. But i absolutely cannot accept that anybody could convince themselves, no matter what their circumstances, that their own kids best interest was served by finding their mothers dead body a couple of weeks prior to christmas. There is no positive spin that can be put on something like that, it was cruel and it was selfish and above all it was totally unnecessary.
And as for identifying with the roll ascribed to her, no, i don't agree. If anyone ever said she was a bad mother to her (which, apart from her and the father arguing over her lack of interest, i don't know if anyone ever did), it would have been because she was one, not vice versa.

I can see what your saying. The way in which it was done shows either thoughtless indifference or active hostility but in the end has the same effect so it really makes no difference.

CDfm

metrovelvet wrote: »

I can see what your saying. The way in which it was done shows either thoughtless indifference or active hostility but in the end has the same effect so it really makes no difference.

It does make a difference.

I often think that when its teen suicide that a teen or an attention seeking person may not get the enormity of "forever".

Its like the drink aware campaign - drink responsibly.

You could say that a lot of suicides don't commit suicide responsibly.Its like love -love is wanting whats best for the other person and putting them first and its what as a parent you do.

So I can't get how a person might feel that they would put themselves first over their children or partner and say its love.

Maybe selfish is the right word for it or maybe there is a psychological term for it , self absorbed or narcissistic. I don't know.

sbsquarepants

metrovelvet wrote: »

I can see what your saying. The way in which it was done shows either thoughtless indifference or active hostility but in the end has the same effect so it really makes no difference.

I think it makes a difference. No child should have to see something like that. No parent should force them to.

CDfm

sbsquarepants wrote: »

I think it makes a difference. No child should have to see something like that. No parent should force them to.

I think its not an exact science - but a person who is suicidal cannot always be described as rational maybe just not thinking straight.

Thats not to say they are mentally ill but a person can do something stupid under stress impulsively or get fixed or focused on an idea that otherwise would not be "healthy". You dont need to be on drink or drugs to do that think roadrage.

Think U2's song lyrics -stuck in a moment you cant get out of - and thats why good mental health support is important.

metrovelvet

CDfm wrote: »

I think its not an exact science - but a person who is suicidal cannot always be described as rational maybe just not thinking straight.

Thats not to say they are mentally ill but a person can do something stupid under stress impulsively or get fixed or focused on an idea that otherwise would not be "healthy". You dont need to be on drink or drugs to do that think roadrage.

Think U2's song lyrics -stuck in a moment you cant get out of - and thats why good mental health support is important.

Exactly!

sbsquarepants

I agree with you, but to use your road rage analogy, if on your way home tonight something happens and loose the plot and box another motorist for example, obviously you weren't thinking rationally to do that, but it doesn't absolve you of any of the guilt and this is the very same. I think she can not ever be absolved of that guilt, some things are just too bad to forgive, and this has got to be one of them. No?

CDfm

sbsquarepants wrote: »

I agree with you, but to use your road rage analogy, if on your way home tonight something happens and loose the plot and box another motorist for example, obviously you weren't thinking rationally to do that, but it doesn't absolve you of any of the guilt and this is the very same. I think she can not ever be absolved of that guilt, some things are just too bad to forgive, and this has got to be one of them. No?

It does not absolve you of any of the guilt on road rage -but if you loose the head with someone and swear etc or toot the horn well - no animals were harmed in the production and if you commit a crime well you have to apologise and one hopes you wont go too far.

Guilt is the same. Depending on your belief its either God that will deal with it or its the end.

I think we can say that in this situation there is a choice of two, either a momentary lapse of reason or it was deliberate. The former you can forgive and the latter well its up to you and you hope the person is at some kind of peace.

It is very contextual and if someone does a selfish act deliberately and some people do well you can judge them accordingly. The selfish act here commiting suicide in a location that they will be found by their children. If on the other hand its a bsically good person who has a momentary lapse of reason -well that is something else. I may not like it but I can understand it.

PrincessLola

Yeah I don't think suicide should really be dismissed as a selfish act or anything, but I honestly don't blame any angry or hurt family members left behind for feeling bitter. I know I would.
My guess is that people who commit suicide are so blinded by their own pain and seemingly inescapaple situatuions that they don't even consider the wider picture of devastated family/friends. Honestly I'd have much more sympathy with a murder victim, then a suicide victim. (rabble rabble I'm so cold and heartless rabble rabble) Really I'm not, I just think that YES as a matter of fact we do have a certain responsibility to the people who love us. Furthermore we have a responsibility to OURSELVES to give ourselves the chance at life we all deserve.