Lived Experience Forum

[chibam]

@wellwellwellnez  I'm sorry for whatever transgressions I might have made. I am really at a loss as to how to express my point of view, or even whether it is ethical for me to express it at all. I understand that my point of view upsets others, but I am usually at a loss as to why this is. Glaring truths to me seem to be falsehoods or delusions to everybody else, and vice-versa. That makes it incredibly hard to navigate this minefield.

I am painfully aware that most other people are on a completely differant page to me regarding such issues. I tried to clarify in my initial post that the views I wanted to express did not speak for the suicidal community as a whole. Perhaps I could've been clearer.

Again, for whatever mis-speakings I may have made, and offence I might have caused, I am truly sorry. I am a sad and angry little man; and I am loathe to inflict any of that sadness or anger upon others. I've always tried to contain myself in that regard, because I know all too well how horrible it is being on the recieving end of such peoples' misery & wrath. But as time has worn on, I seem to fly off the handle more and more readily these days, and realize far too late that I've just caused a lot of grief.

I'm sorry.

[wellwellwellnez]

Not such a different page @chibam . The more I think about the more aligned we all are (at least on the general issues). Safety can be a double-edged sword, sometimes.

I did notice and appreciate the viewpoint clarification you made. I'll clarify, like I should of done in the beginning. Tricky thing for me is opinions can be a description but also a prescription.

There's two ways to interpret what you said:

Descriptive; While lives are saved, many of those lives continue to be in extreme pain.

(everyone agrees with that, though, to your point, it is underestimated.)

Prescriptive; Those people should give up and/or be given up on.

(that's the interpretation I was arguing with.)

I think you were talking more about best resource allocation. I certainly agree saving lives is best accomplished by improving life. Allocation should reflect that. Allocation will reflect that. Progress happens, just not progressively enough.

That's why what you're doing is actually really important. While, I'd qualify your "edge" from time to time. I really respect that you're aiming for change and "impact". I take regular inspiration from you.

[chibam]

---

@wellwellwellnez wrote:

There's two ways to interpret what you said:

Descriptive; While lives are saved, many of those lives continue to be in extreme pain.

(everyone agrees with that, though, to your point, it is underestimated.)

Prescriptive; Those people should give up and/or be given up on.

(that's the interpretation I was arguing with.)

---

Well, I certainly never meant to dictate whether or not other people should give up. That's a decision that should be entirely up to themselves.

As for whether or not the rest of the world should give up on them, I think that the key thing to remember is that this is already happening in droves. But the world seems to view these outcomes as being "okay, though less-then-ideal". because the sufferer remains alive. Whereas if the sufferer died, society would generally regard this as a worse outcome. That's something I disagree with.

I'm not suggesting that other people don't have a right to manage their own lives according to this set of priorities. But they are not my priorities, and I don't want them dictating the course of my life, nor the life of anyone else who finds them distasteful.

It all comes down to how you view death. A lot of people seem to view it as an indisputably bad thing that must be feared, denounced and avoided at all costs. I, personally, view it in more favorable terms. And it often worries me that fair, rational decision-making is being sabotaged by some peoples' fanatical aversion to death, even when confronted with prospects that are arguably much, much worse.

Obviously, we all want sufferers to achieve happy, worthwhile lives, and nobody likes to talk about scenarios where that is not possible. But, just for the sake of argument, if it is a foregone conclusion that a person's life can't be fixed, where do our priorities lie? Do we respect their freedom to choose death over a life they don't want? Or do we inflict long, admittedly pointless, despised lives upon them?

Regardless of whether or not there are such things as unsolvable problems, I think we need to clarify where our values lie in this matter; even if it is only a philosophical dilemma, and not a real-life one. (Personally, I believe it is often a real-life scenario, but I digress). Because understanding our own position regarding respecting another person's preferance for death is key to defining what we mean when we talk about "helping" someone. Is our ambition to control others, or to serve them? It's hard to argue the former when we are so inclined to dictate: "You must live!" upon them, regardless of their circumstances or own views on the matter.

I have a sneaking suspicion that this may once again cross the line of what's acceptable. I hope not. I hope I am just adding civil, rational insight. But if I've crossed the line, then I do apologize.

It's a line I can't see.