I believe as long as people (1) are not in debt OR have completed a filing for bankruptcy, AND (2) they’ve made arrangements for any dependants to be properly cared for after they’re gone, they should be allowed access to safe and painless (or as near-to-painless-as-possible) options for committing suicide. Yes, I’m completely serious. The reason I think so is not just because I think we all should have a right to end our own lives, but because if things were arranged that way on a *societal* level then I feel people would be more supportive of those around them. Sure you could still gaslight/invalidate people with the whole “HOW WOULD THAT OTHER PERSON FEEL?” spiel, but if a person is willing to put in the time to take care of actual societal obligations, and if there was a way for that to be formally recognized, that kind of thinking would ring hollow.
The actual fact is that suicide is taboo not because there is any sincere sentiment behind the “HOW WOULD THAT OTHER PERSON FEEL?” response, but because even the most miserable, hopeless, “unproductive” people are more useful to society alive than dead.
Even if you’re socially isolated, homeless, unemployed, and/or marginalized in other ways, you or someone else is still spending money on sheltering and feeding you. That flow of cash is benefiting people. Your social isolation might tempt you into addiction, which contributes to the bottom line of whoever is peddling your desires. Within our capitalist societies, homelessness spins off into spending on social services, charities, police departments, private companies that make “anti-homeless spikes” (google it) and the like. If you’re unemployed AND compelled to find a job to survive (i.e. not idle rich so you have to be in the job market), you help keep labour a buyer’s market. Some people like to pretend social spending doesn’t contribute to economic growth but then these same people will also cite GDP, which includes all of that spending either directly or indirectly. The only way not to contribute is to not spend money yourself, AND not have anyone spending money on you.
And how do you do that? You leave the system. Either live entirely off the grid somehow (essentially impossible) or die.
Because how can society continue to benefit from your existence after your death? For one last hurrah there’s disposal of the body, clerical work, a funeral, possibly counselling for the bereaved (assuming there are some), inheritances (assuming recipients spend it and don’t just stash it away), maybe a newspaper announcement now and then, but soon it all peters out and then… that’s it. Suicide in particular is heinous to supporters of the system we live in because, I expect, the vast majority of suicides are markers for unsolved socioeconomic problems. Those chronic problems are themselves markers that the system doesn’t work. Allowing people access to reliable and relatively painless means of committing suicide with records kept on reasons why they chose to die, and then publishing the untouched results regularly, would be the strongest measure of confidence in a fair, free, and open society that there ever could be.
6 comments
Yeah, totally agree. But the economic factor isn’t the only reason why society doesn’t want you to suicide. People are scared, because through suicides they are shown what an obscure monstrosity our society has become. Suicides rip them right out of their fairytale lives. They don’t wanna know about the suffering and evil in our world, especially if it’s right around the corner; they prefer illusions of continuous happiness. Death itself is a taboo in our society.
Absolutely, but there are always some people who just want the truth, and some of those people who pretend everything’s alright can be swayed to join them and tip the balance. That’s why I think publishing the numbers of suicides along with a record of the reasons people opt to end their lives would be an eye-opener to such people. You can’t pretend everything’s fine when confronted with the fact people are *choosing* to die, left and right. The most affluent folks (and the news media they own) would certainly try to avoid talking about it though.
Nah,
While putting in a power plug for my laptop, which ain’t that easy (child protection), I beg to differ. There is no final board of directors who chooses who deservers to live and your ideas are in my humble opinion preposterous. Do I wish you to live? Hell yeah. But saying what you’re saying? F that, I’m just happy you’ll spend another day with me (this power hungry, insolent fool, who never ever gives about you and only uses you as a battery).
Kind regards,
name
Not sure I follow what you’re saying here. I didn’t say anything about a “board of directors” or people “deserving” (or not “deserving) to live… ??? The idea of someone *not* deserving to live in and of itself sounds preposterous to *me*.
I was talking about how socioeconomic problems are the tragic cause of most suicides, yet they go unaddressed by most politicians and unnoticed by most media and so the rest of the public (outside of academia anyway) largely fails to discuss them as well. This is by design, however, because those socioeconomic problems are a necessary part of the system we currently live under. Having been left in the dark by politicians and media, people who *aren’t* suffering as much as a suicidal person assume everything is right with the world (as ClairDeLune mentions) and become accordingly defensive of the system. Without even realizing it, they seek to shut down all discussion about how the current system simply doesn’t *work* for most people. This protectiveness people have over the system is reflected in the typical unempathetic “But [-person-] would be devastated if you die!” response that imposes a responsibility for other people’s feelings upon an already afflicted suicidal person. Talking about anybody BUT the suicidal person is a method of SILENCING the suicidal person instead of compassionately providing them with an outlet to discuss/address the root causes of their suffering. At the very least, acknowledging a suicidal person is going through difficult times that are real and very hard for them is the bare minimum.
TL/DR: If you really care about helping suicidal people, you get US talking about our own feelings, you accept our feelings, and then discuss solving them head on. You don’t make it about you, and you don’t make it about a third party. That’s the bare MINIMUM. If society actually cared, we could reduce suicide rates to a fraction of what they are today. But solving the problem would mean big changes to the system, so… not happening. Because rather than helping and protecting their fellow human beings, ignorant people rationalize away the problems and fearfully cling to a system that is all they know.
if suicide were legal. unemployment wouldnt exist.
the minimum wage would be alot higher (demand for workers)
the entire rest of the world would be alot more forgiving
Interesting. I think it’s more likely though that unemployment will always exist (and continue to drive down labour costs) as long as human survival is tied to having a job. This is a difficult one for most people to accept, but if we truly value human life then survival with basic dignity should be a human right, regardless of whether you have a job or not. Lately I’ve seen where experiments have been done on it and come to believe that people should receive a guaranteed basic minimum income (not the existing heavily-stigmatized “welfare” for only poor people that isn’t enough to get you out of your situation but a respectable basic survival income for *everyone* below a certain threshold) so they can have true freedom of choice in their career path. For me, the only requirements would be that you *do* get a college or university degree and *do* either sell your labour or start a business of your own. Consumer demand would shoot up (because even the “poorest” people could spend more) and more market competition would exist among businesses (because people would take more risks with their money). Labour would get harder for these businesses to come by but they could still equitably keep employment costs lower by virtue of labour not being a survival necessity anymore.