Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Terminally ill 16-year-old takes his anti-suicide campaign to RTE
Options
Comments
-
Forced to live?? everyone has a time to die, what gives anyone the right to do so before then?
Are of the opinion that life is just some thing that you can just decide thats it ive had enough is it?
Hold on a minute. Who gets to say when that 'time to die' is?
Are you saying that a person who was not in any relationship, had no kids, siblings or parents living & only some acquaintances should not have the right, if they choose, to commit suicide?0 -
I haven't read any of the posts in this thread, so I can only imagine.
With that in mind, can we as a planet of people just realise, acknowledge and admit that a person with a terminal illness and a suicidal person are in COMPLETELY, 100% ENTIRELY AND INDISPUTABLY different situations, and never put the two in the same discussion ever again?
*Leaves the room.*0 -
Moderators, Social & Fun Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 30,857 Mod ✭✭✭✭
Join Date:Posts: 28629
I haven't read any of the posts in this thread, so I can only imagine.
With that in mind, can we as a planet of people just realise, acknowledge and admit that a person with a terminal illness and a suicidal person are in COMPLETELY, 100% ENTIRELY AND INDISPUTABLY different situations, and never put the two in the same discussion ever again?
*Leaves the room.*
Ooh, a seagull contribution. That's useful!0 -
Insect Overlord wrote: »Ooh, a seagull contribution. That's useful!
*Re-enters room*
Well, internet arguments are about as useful as a chocolate teapot and almost never lead to anyone openly changing their point of view on anything. A person defending their comments on the internet is akin to a parent defending their child.... No matter how idiotic or ridiculous they eventually realise it is, they will defend it to the death no matter what. So.....
On that note *Leaves the room again*0 -
*Re-enters room*
Well, internet arguments are about as useful as a chocolate teapot and almost never lead to anyone openly changing their point of view on anything. A person defending their comments on the internet is akin to a parent defending their child.... No matter how idiotic or ridiculous they eventually realise it is, they will defend it to the death no matter what. So.....
On that note *Leaves the room again*
Note: Whirlpool must have come in & gone out a third time as there was a post edit at 1:22.0 -
Advertisement
-
Have been struggling to keep up with this thread lately.*Re-enters room*
Well, internet arguments are about as useful as a chocolate teapot and almost never lead to anyone openly changing their point of view on anything. A person defending their comments on the internet is akin to a parent defending their child.... No matter how idiotic or ridiculous they eventually realise it is, they will defend it to the death no matter what. So.....
On that note *Leaves the room again*
So you post two posts that are about as useful as a chocolate teapot. I would also like to tell you that a chocolate teapot can make tea and the tea tastes rather nice and chocolaty.0 -
The simplest way i can explain it to you is this. If a person on the verge of commiting suicide stood before you and asked you if they had any other choice but to end their life. Would you be in agreement with them that it is there only choice? Or would you explain to them that they have a choice not to do so? Thats another rhetorical question as because you an clearly see the person has another option of course you'll tell them.
A choice, by definition, requires the consideration of two or more options. If someone can only see one of those options they do not have a choice to make.
Even if you explain to them that they have a choice to live or die that doesn't warrant both those options to be considered. Tomorrow you have the option of leaving your house by a window or door but you (probably) won't even consider using the window. It's simply not a viable option, even if it technically exists as one.
Isn't it? Does there exist an objective and absolute argument that demands everyone live their natural born life for it's own sake?Are of the opinion that life is just some thing that you can just decide thats it ive had enough is it?0 -
Ill agree to disagree with you on this as i can see the angle you are coming from.
But you have brought an excellent article before me for analysis, thank you
More than welcome P, the more open we are to different perspectives that can be introduced to the discussion, the closer we all get towards reaching some understandings.I Would be inclined to say that this person who is clearly well educated is setting a far worse example for mentally ill people than Donal Walsh ever did. Shes here basically fighting a case to gain the right to commit suicide. What a great example to set. I wonder how many people who condemned Donal for his words would be in agreement that this is potentially severely damaging as if it ever passed it would create the idea that if a person is suffering enough they have a right to commit suicide, or even worse be assisted in it.
I was one who never condemned Donal though. While I appreciated his perspective, I did think he came off as a bit of a martyr and a new messiah effort, which unfortunately is the line the media and of course (because Donal was religious himself) his church, have latched on to and run with. This is disingenuous at best and I'm fairly sure that while Donal wanted to get HIS message out there, it's now been overshadowed, misconstrued, and carried on the crest of a wave, losing it's originally intended meaning and naturally- getting people's backs up. This was due to Donal's naivety of how the media work, and his passion for wanting to get his opinion out there was turned into a heartstrings tugging circus by the media, and therefore will lose all it's momentum, because the media are unfortunately fickle as fcuk and yesterdays news is quickly forgotten.
While Donal had his fifteen minutes of fame, and was given access to a massive audience, Marie Fleming has been fighting for the right to self-determination for, Jesus years now! She was never given the publicity to air her views that Donal was privileged to have had. Why? Because hearing somebody having literally to beg for the right to be allowed to die with dignity and their self respect intact, well that just kicks up all sorts of moral quandries for us as a "civilised" society, when from birth, we are taught that every moment is precious and we should savor it. Rarely is a thought ever given to those who are quite literally unable to savor every precious moment, when every moment for them is one of either excruciating physical or mental pain, apathy, a lack of empathy (often perceived mistakenly as the person suffering from narcissistic personality disorder and where the "it's all about me" perception wrongly comes from), for whom every moment is a constant struggle just to tread water while wearing a pair of concrete boots.
Rarely is a thought ever given to the fact that these people just don't want to BE at the party. Would you try and stop someone leaving a party when they want to go? Nine times out of ten you'll think "Fcuk it, let them off, I'm enjoying myself here!".
The one time you'll try and stop them, that hurts them even more. Because when somebody just doesn't want to be there, they don't want to be there. They can want to go for any number of reasons, some are rational, some are indeed what YOU might consider irrational, but that's because you won't allow your mind to think about it from their perspective. When you do, that's when you'll understand the meaning of self determination, and when someone wants to leave the party, sometimes it's better to let them leave with their dignity and self respect intact than force them to stay and force them to watch everyone else have all the fun till THEY say it's time to go.
Try and think about the individual, a lot closer to home, than the faceless crowd at the party, many of whom won't even notice nor care about the one person who wants to slip away quietly with the minimum of fuss and without ruining the party for everyone else.0 -
I wonder how many people who condemned Donal for his words would be in agreement that this is potentially severely damaging as if it ever passed it would create the idea that if a person is suffering enough they have a right to commit suicide, or even worse be assisted in it.
Why shouldn't they have that right? because YOU don't like it/don't agree?
It is them that isn't living. Them in physical and/or mental pain. That is often intense and unending. If they have been through all the help there is and are still in pain, why should they be forced to live? Why is this more humane??0 -
Forced to live?? everyone has a time to die, what gives anyone the right to do so before then?
Are of the opinion that life is just some thing that you can just decide thats it ive had enough is it?
Ive watched that video, and probably long before you did too, along with plenty of others not to mention a significant amount of reading, so know that im pretty well up on the subject thanks, Yes i sympathize with them, but not enough to agree that to take their life is in anyway ok
You obviously have never met anyone with a seriously debilitating disease which means they have no quality of life whatsoever and with no hope of recovery.
If you have watched the lecture then you have failed horribly in comprehending it. Therefore I would be of reasonable suspicion to say that you have not watched it. Your knowledge of depression is woefully lacking.To tell someone suffering from depression to pull themselves together is like telling a diabetic to sort his blood sugar out.
Robert Sapolsky0 -
Advertisement
-
To tell someone suffering from depression to pull themselves together is like telling a diabetic to sort his blood sugar out.
Robert Sapolsky
This made me smile. Me thinks Robert doesn't know much about diabetes!0 -
This made me smile. Me thinks Robert doesn't know much about diabetes!
Yes poor Robert is not very bright, he knows very little, he is only one of the world's leading neuroendocrinologist and a Professor in Stanford. Try to read the quote a little deeper (I suppose I didn't give context although I had assumed some degree of inference). Depression is a biochemical disease with a genetic component. People seem to think that those suffering from depression can just "get over" depression. You need insulin to treat diabetes, you cannot just "get over" it. The same way you need a lot of treatment to recover from depression.0 -
Yes poor Robert is not very bright, he knows very little, he is only one of the world's leading neuroendocrinologist and a Professor in Stanford. Try to read the quote a little deeper (I suppose I didn't give context although I had assumed some degree of inference). Depression is a biochemical disease with a genetic component. People seem to think that those suffering from depression can just "get over" depression. You need insulin to treat diabetes, you cannot just "get over" it. The same way you need a lot of treatment to recover from depression.
As with a lot of people's replies in this thread, you completely misunderstood and twisted what I said. I never said anything like what you say above. I didn't even hint at things like people with depression should "get over it"! Where did you get all that from?
My point was that it is most likely much easier to treat diabetes than depression. In fact, I can attest to this from personal experience. But I'm sure each case is different.0 -
I wouldn't say that, but the one thing I would say is that there is a way back. Maybe not for everyone, but there will always be support & treatment as you said.Yes poor Robert is not very bright, he knows very little, he is only one of the world's leading neuroendocrinologist and a Professor in Stanford. Try to read the quote a little deeper (I suppose I didn't give context although I had assumed some degree of inference). Depression is a biochemical disease with a genetic component. People seem to think that those suffering from depression can just "get over" depression. You need insulin to treat diabetes, you cannot just "get over" it. The same way you need a lot of treatment to recover from depression.
Maybe Donal underestimated the power of mental illness, but he had a point. I've seen people in the grip of alcoholism and mental illness, literally down, out and sleeping rough. Yet many of them found a way back against all odds. They didn't get over depression, but they sought help and learned how to cope with life.
I know not everyone can do that, but it is possible. Unfortunately, "possible" didn't come into it for Donal and many others like him.0 -
-
Handsome Bob wrote: »I wouldn't say that, but the one thing I would say is that there is a way back. Maybe not for everyone, but there will always be support & treatment as you said.
Maybe Donal underestimated the power of mental illness, but he had a point. I've seen people in the grip of alcoholism and mental illness, literally down, out and sleeping rough. Yet many of them found a way back against all odds. They didn't get over depression, but they sought help and learned how to cope with life.
I know not everyone can do that, but it is possible. Unfortunately, "possible" didn't come into it for Donal and many others like him.
Yes I agree with you. Treatment is possible however there are people who are inflicted with depression for their whole lives and the end result is generally suicide.
There was this idea that depression was something you could just get over in society. It is not as pervasive now but the way some people have went on in this thread it shows that some people still cling to the notion.0 -
Yes I agree with you. Treatment is possible however there are people who are inflicted with depression for their whole lives and the end result is generally suicide.
Mardy how do you actually make that out? I agree with you that people can suffer from depression their whole lives, but a much closer analogy than a physical terminal illness such as lung cancer would be alcoholism, where there is a treatment period, then a recovery stage, and ongoing treatment, because neither depression nor alcoholism are a disorder you can actually cure. Try not to get too hung up on comparisons between mental and physical illnesses as they would be commonly understood by the general public because that's where you're going to lose people. But to say the "end result" for depression is generally suicide? I'm genuinely struggling to see how you came up with that one when you should be putting the message out there that people can come back from depression, that it IS treatable and that it IS manageable.There was this idea that depression was something you could just get over in society. It is not as pervasive now but the way some people have went on in this thread it shows that some people still cling to the notion.
The only people I could see in this thread Mardy who have constantly thrown that up in the discussion are people who have identified as having experience of, or experienced suffering from depression. They are constantly throwing it in anyone's face who they disagree with as a roundabout way of dismissing them. These posters keep trying to hammer it home along with "people only say get over yourself and cop on and tell people suffering from depression they should cop on and they don't have it so bad", etc, all the silly negative myths that are long, long since done away with and that again nobody, nobody in this thread has brought up, only those who identified as having experienced or have experience of suffering from depression. These people need to understand that just because they suffer from depression, does not give them any insight into how another person might be affected by depression, so dismissive statements like "well you can't have much experience of depression if you're saying so and so". We don't KNOW what their experience of depression is because it's different for everybody, both the extent and the degree to which one person will experience depression can vary greatly between two individuals based on numerous other factors, so we shouldn't be so quick to dismiss their opinion from their perspective, or else we learn nothing ourselves.0 -
Mardy how do you actually make that out? I agree with you that people can suffer from depression their whole lives, but a much closer analogy than a physical terminal illness such as lung cancer would be alcoholism, where there is a treatment period, then a recovery stage, and ongoing treatment, because neither depression nor alcoholism are a disorder you can actually cure. Try not to get too hung up on comparisons between mental and physical illnesses as they would be commonly understood by the general public because that's where you're going to lose people. But to say the "end result" for depression is generally suicide? I'm genuinely struggling to see how you came up with that one when you should be putting the message out there that people can come back from depression, that it IS treatable and that it IS manageable.
II agree that it is quite problematic to make a link between cancer and depression. Depression can be managed with counselling and antidepressants for the most part in cases which are brought on by stress and an unexpected event. However those who suffer from seasonal and chronic depression must resort to medication which can be very hard but you are correct in saying that it can be managed successfully. I am not trying to say there is no way back, all I'm saying is that suicide can occur and I don't agree with pone2012 comments regarding suicide in these cases.
People who are directly affected by depression are the ones who hear these things however I have said these attitudes are not nearly as pervasive now as they were. Having spoken to quite a few and had the chance to work with the cycle against suicide team I have heard a lot and I agree with you in that attitudes have changed massively in recent times but it was not a myth too long ago.0 -
Yes I agree with you. Treatment is possible however there are people who are inflicted with depression for their whole lives and the end result is generally suicide.
There was this idea that depression was something you could just get over in society. It is not as pervasive now but the way some people have went on in this thread it shows that some people still cling to the notion.
That alone tells me how little you've observed this thread. and to make a statement such as ''the end result is generally suicide'' tells me your the one with a bad understanding of depression.Mardy how do you actually make that out? I agree with you that people can suffer from depression their whole lives, but a much closer analogy than a physical terminal illness such as lung cancer would be alcoholism, where there is a treatment period, then a recovery stage, and ongoing treatment, because neither depression nor alcoholism are a disorder you can actually cure. Try not to get too hung up on comparisons between mental and physical illnesses as they would be commonly understood by the general public because that's where you're going to lose people. But to say the "end result" for depression is generally suicide? I'm genuinely struggling to see how you came up with that one when you should be putting the message out there that people can come back from depression, that it IS treatable and that it IS manageable.
The only people I could see in this thread Mardy who have constantly thrown that up in the discussion are people who have identified as having experience of, or experienced suffering from depression. They are constantly throwing it in anyone's face who they disagree with as a roundabout way of dismissing them. These posters keep trying to hammer it home along with "people only say get over yourself and cop on and tell people suffering from depression they should cop on and they don't have it so bad", etc, all the silly negative myths that are long, long since done away with and that again nobody, nobody in this thread has brought up, only those who identified as having experienced or have experience of suffering from depression. These people need to understand that just because they suffer from depression, does not give them any insight into how another person might be affected by depression, so dismissive statements like "well you can't have much experience of depression if you're saying so and so". We don't KNOW what their experience of depression is because it's different for everybody, both the extent and the degree to which one person will experience depression can vary greatly between two individuals based on numerous other factors, so we shouldn't be so quick to dismiss their opinion from their perspective, or else we learn nothing ourselves.
For the bold part im also struggling with this, and for the underlined part i 100% agreeGeneral General wrote: »I wouldn't argue with them nor explain to them that they HAD a choice, if they said they didn't. I wouldn't see that as a constructive approach.
& if I did decide, for whatever reasons, that confronting the person about their having a choice was the best approach... well, I'd be ignoring possibilities that I know exist &, I suppose, I'd be relying on the person not having the will or powers of expression to argue back. I'm not sure why I would do this..
After all, as I've said elsewhere in the thread, there are people out there that insist that those who die of many physical illnesses do so as they choose not to drink the potion, hold the crystals, or chant the names of whoever or whatever. I wouldn't agree that such-&-such a person chose to die of heart disease as they wouldn't pray to Elvis while wearing slippers fashioned from Tibetan goat-hair.
You seem to feel that there are no questions worth considering about the objective or factual existence of there being a choice open to person X... or about some person Y's access to the nature of that choice open to person X, supposing as you do that it exists.
I don't understand why someone who has clearly thought a lot about this matter (& is a third level student of a course with an element of psychology) would refuse to concede some ground on this point..
I decided not to go for any rhetorical questions, as I don't think they're in this season.
Ok with all the multi quotes slightly confused so concede on what exactly?General General wrote: »Hold on a minute. Who gets to say when that 'time to die' is?
Are you saying that a person who was not in any relationship, had no kids, siblings or parents living & only some acquaintances should not have the right, if they choose, to commit suicide?A choice, by definition, requires the consideration of two or more options. If someone can only see one of those options they do not have a choice to make.
Even if you explain to them that they have a choice to live or die that doesn't warrant both those options to be considered. Tomorrow you have the option of leaving your house by a window or door but you (probably) won't even consider using the window. It's simply not a viable option, even if it technically exists as one.
Isn't it? Does there exist an objective and absolute argument that demands everyone live their natural born life for it's own sake?
Thanks for the correction, what i should have said was there exists another option, even if it cant be seen. A very nice analogy but consider this, if nothing exisits outside of that door yet something exists outside of the window but you cannot see it, do you choose to go with the door? or the window?You obviously have never met anyone with a seriously debilitating disease which means they have no quality of life whatsoever and with no hope of recovery.
If you have watched the lecture then you have failed horribly in comprehending it. Therefore I would be of reasonable suspicion to say that you have not watched it. Your knowledge of depression is woefully lacking.
Look back through the thread ive plenty of experience with depression, and i mean plenty. And I also would be interested to know what exactly qualifies you to tell me i have no clue what im talking about?? you dont know me you've never met me but you base it on my opinion? Ive done alot of the reading on the subject since the start of this thread, and i study psychology so i can comprehend what im reading quite well,
So again I ask? what gives you the right to tell me my knowledge is woeful?As with a lot of people's replies in this thread, you completely misunderstood and twisted what I said. I never said anything like what you say above. I didn't even hint at things like people with depression should "get over it"! Where did you get all that from?
My point was that it is most likely much easier to treat diabetes than depression. In fact, I can attest to this from personal experience. But I'm sure each case is different.
This!!0 -
Ok with all the multi quotes slightly confused so concede on what exactly?
This:General General wrote: »
You seem to feel that there are no questions worth considering about the objective or factual existence of there being a choice open to person X... or about some person Y's access to the nature of that choice open to person X, supposing as you do that it exists.0 -
Advertisement
-
Oh im very much in agreement that there are many variables. I just tried to state the fact that other options exisit besides suicide. Indeed it isn't as simple as black and white all the time. I only used those words to drive a point home that the option is there even if it cannot be seen.0
-
That alone tells me how little you've observed this thread. and to make a statement such as ''the end result is generally suicide'' tells me your the one with a bad understanding of depression.
!
So there are not a certain proportion of chronic depression suffers who resort to suicide?Im aware of the implications of depression and its effect on free will thanks, what im referring to is the fact that universally there is a choice yes illnesses cloud the mind and compromise free will etc but the choice still exsists even if the person doesn't see it
Im interpreting this somewhat jumbled sentence so correct me if I am wrong. You have been posting about a "choice" for those suffering depression as if they can somehow be told that they need to make the correct choice and they should somehow be able to comprehend this in its entirety or else we should lock them up in a home just incase. As I said you cannot just tell someone suffering from depression to be better in the same way you cannot tell someone with diabetes to be better. Its a biochemical disease which can cause people to kill themselves. Firstly the person needs to receive treatment. This hopefully will be successful but for the poor souls who do pass away by their own hand they should not be seen as the villains for "hurting the family". Suicide is not being defended btw.0 -
So there are not a certain proportion of chronic depression suffers who resort to suicide?
Fairness now Mardy it's that sort of playing around with words that looks more like "I have to be right" than actually listening to what's being said. What you said originally was that the end result of depression is generally suicide. That would imply that you were proposing the majority of sufferers of depression die by suicide. Now you are switching to narrowing down the same assertion in what looks like an attempt to get one up on pone by qualifying your earlier statement with phrases like "certain proportion" and "chronic depression". That's just nit picking IMO and could easily be countered by saying how quantifiable is a "certain proportion"- 10%, 20%, 80%? And as for "chronic" depression, well, that's subjective, and again hardly quantifiable, and definitions will vary. The above smacks of àrse covering, just to be "right" IMO, and adds no new information to the discussion.Im interpreting this somewhat jumbled sentence so correct me if I am wrong. You have been posting about a "choice" for those suffering depression as if they can somehow be told that they need to make the correct choice and they should somehow be able to comprehend this in its entirety or else we should lock them up in a home just incase. As I said you cannot just tell someone suffering from depression to be better in the same way you cannot tell someone with diabetes to be better. Its a biochemical disease which can cause people to kill themselves. Firstly the person needs to receive treatment.
The bolded bit, pone wasn't saying that at all and I think well you know it. At least call it what it is- a disorder, not a disease, and the suggestion even then that it's a biochemical disorder- no it's not, and that's a theory too with a very fluffy reference point given that while chemical hormonal imbalances are observed in people suffering from depression, to say there is one specific biochemical reaction responsible for depression is just bad science at best. Depression IS treated by biochemical means though.This hopefully will be successful but for the poor souls who do pass away by their own hand they should not be seen as the villains for "hurting the family". Suicide is not being defended btw
I agree with you that nobody should be seen as a villain for dying by suicide, but see again there's where depression as a cause for someone taking their own life, and someone making a conscious decision to take their own life should be separated out as they are two vastly different things. We're back again to the fact that Donal was at pains to emphasise that his message was NOT aimed at those people suffering from mental illness, but young people who made a conscious decision to die by suicide.
This thread should NEVER have been about mental illness, it should've been about Donal's message to people his own age that they had a choice, they should value what their potential and what they have to live for, but that wasn't enough for some cack handed editor at the independent, and the even more inept talking heads at RTE, who shoehorned the issue of mental health in there with suicide amongst young people, because they couldn't wrap their heads around the fact that the two aren't intrinsically linked! The same mistake a lot of posters in this thread are continuing to make.
Also, to say nobody is defending suicide; I've asked one poster already, and now I ask you- please, with all due respect, speak for yourself on that one. I have consistently defended my right to self determination and my inherent right to die with my dignity and self respect intact. I will continue to defend suicide and euthanasia, from my own perspective, as I understand it's not something I should expect everyone to just fall in line and agree with me on it, but at least keep it a separate issue from depression.
Taking one's own life does not in every case mean there were signs of depression that nobody spotted. For some who choose to die by suicide, there really weren't any warning signs their family, relatives, friends, work colleagues could have spotted or seen coming in order to prevent the person from taking their own life.0 -
Fairness now Mardy it's that sort of playing around with words that looks more like "I have to be right" than actually listening to what's being said. What you said originally was that the end result of depression is generally suicide. That would imply that you were proposing the majority of sufferers of depression die by suicide. Now you are switching to narrowing down the same assertion in what looks like an attempt to get one up on pone by qualifying your earlier statement with phrases like "certain proportion" and "chronic depression". That's just nit picking IMO and could easily be countered by saying how quantifiable is a "certain proportion"- 10%, 20%, 80%? And as for "chronic" depression, well, that's subjective, and again hardly quantifiable, and definitions will vary. The above smacks of àrse covering, just to be "right" IMO, and adds no new information to the discussion.
The bolded bit, pone wasn't saying that at all and I think well you know it. At least call it what it is- a disorder, not a disease, and the suggestion even then that it's a biochemical disorder- no it's not, and that's a theory too with a very fluffy reference point given that while chemical hormonal imbalances are observed in people suffering from depression, to say there is one specific biochemical reaction responsible for depression is just bad science at best. Depression IS treated by biochemical means though.
I agree with you that nobody should be seen as a villain for dying by suicide, but see again there's where depression as a cause for someone taking their own life, and someone making a conscious decision to take their own life should be separated out as they are two vastly different things. We're back again to the fact that Donal was at pains to emphasise that his message was NOT aimed at those people suffering from mental illness, but young people who made a conscious decision to die by suicide.
This thread should NEVER have been about mental illness, it should've been about Donal's message to people his own age that they had a choice, they should value what their potential and what they have to live for, but that wasn't enough for some cack handed editor at the independent, and the even more inept talking heads at RTE, who shoehorned the issue of mental health in there with suicide amongst young people, because they couldn't wrap their heads around the fact that the two aren't intrinsically linked! The same mistake a lot of posters in this thread are continuing to make.
Also, to say nobody is defending suicide; I've asked one poster already, and now I ask you- please, with all due respect, speak for yourself on that one. I have consistently defended my right to self determination and my inherent right to die with my dignity and self respect intact. I will continue to defend suicide and euthanasia, from my own perspective, as I understand it's not something I should expect everyone to just fall in line and agree with me on it, but at least keep it a separate issue from depression.
Taking one's own life does not in every case mean there were signs of depression that nobody spotted. For some who choose to die by suicide, there really weren't any warning signs their family, relatives, friends, work colleagues could have spotted or seen coming in order to prevent the person from taking their own life.
I said "Treatment is possible however there are people who are inflicted with suicide and the end result is generally suicide". "Generally" may be misconstrued as referring to all people but I qualified it by saying "there are people" by which I meant a group. Its straightforward really some people die from depression despite receiving treatment. This is known. I'm not trying to score points my sentence must have been misinterpreted.
I wouldn't really call it fluffy either it is evident that hippocampal atrophy arises as a result of depression.
Also:The urgency of the rate of depression to public health is likely compounded by the recognition that – if not effectively treated – depression is likely to lapse into a chronic disease.
Centers of Disease Control and Prevention
I was not talking about suicide in relation to debilitating disease (I thought it was purely a reference to depression and suicide romanticism), I have made my feelings known that people should be allowed the right to decide. I was arguing against the romanticising of it, the Stoic suicide if you will.0 -
Right, I'm locking this and have deleted the, quite frankly, bizarre rant that was posted. In future, think before you post.0
This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement