Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Daddy isn’t coming back

ft.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

301–310 of 430 posts

Re: Daddy isn’t coming back

#301

Post by tomjen3 »

Barrin92 wrote: post #292
sneak wrote: post #266

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Suicide is a human right. Interfering with someone's basic right to self-determination is absolutely despicable, no matter how ill the person is.

someone who suffers from suicidal tendencies as a result of mental illness is in no capacity to make these decisions, they're as incapable of making actual decisions as a minor, probably more so and should be institutionalized. The right to self-determination derives from an assumption of someone being in a clear state of mind, that's why we have plenty of conditions under which we withdraw that right.

You will therefore agree that those who do not suffer from mental ilness have a have a right to kill themselves.

Anyway, I didn't consent to being born, why shouldn't I be able to choose to stop living?

Re: Daddy isn’t coming back

#302

Post by rubyist5eva »

kreeben wrote: post #257
rubyist5eva wrote: post #230

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Thank you, and I like the idea of watching a dumb but harmless movie to kinda forget about things for a couple hours. It’s been a while since I’ve been able to do that. Thank you.

These are just suggestions, but what if you just told yourself, "hey, world, I need a break". I know it's hard to find time for yourself. But what if you did it at night? Your wife and kid, they're both asleep and you've already decided, tomorrow is going to be a sick day, this is my time, and so you put on Real Steel and just become immersed? After that, watch another one. Or a whole series on Netflix. Turn that day…

I will keep that in mind. I'm up late working a lot lately, maybe a night to just watch a stupid movie instead and sleep in is just what I need.

Re: Daddy isn’t coming back

#303

Post by tsimionescu »

sneak wrote: post #266
jolux wrote: post #260

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Man, what. Psychiatrists have to commit you if they think you're an immediate danger to yourself. I'm sure shitty ones do it in situations where they shouldn't, but speaking as someone who has actually experienced being suicidal, my psychiatrist was the only person I actually fully trusted to help me get what I needed. Maybe I'm just lucky to have ended up with psychs who will take on more risk to avoid having to com…

Suicide is a human right. Interfering with someone's basic right to self-determination is absolutely despicable, no matter how ill the person is.

You have no idea what you're talking about.

I actually agree that suicide/euthanasia is a human right, but one that can only legally come about after careful rational deliberation and seeking medical counseling.

Most people who commit suicide are mentally ill, often barely aware of what it actually means and what will be the consequences at the time of the act.

Re: Daddy isn’t coming back

#304

Post by watwut »

R0b0t1 wrote: post #143
watwut wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

He literally answered "no, I am not suicidal" to the "are you suicidal" question. And in fact, he did not became suicidal after. This was not failure of suicide hotline. This was them recognizing he is misusing the service.

If you answer yes they are liable to send someone to kidnap you, so people are trained to not answer yes.

Expectation for suicide hotline is not "make whoever is sad and calls happy". It is to prevent suicides. He called suicide horline. He was not suicidal at all, he said it to then and to us.

He was not trained away from saying it. The question did not even came straight away. If he is afraid to admit suicidal thought for rational reasons, as you say, rational act is to not call at all.

Way more likely explanation is that they realized he is not suicidal, then asked to confirm and end ended that all.

Re: Daddy isn’t coming back

#305

Post by wasteofelectron »

AmericanChopper wrote: post #137
wasteofelectron wrote: post #124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is an account of a woman’s husband and the father of her children being severely ill and dying by suicide, not “some hardship” or a “topic”. Have some respect for goodness sake. You never know when you’ll need someone to do the same for you.

This is exactly the type of irrational, emotional reaction the active is designed to elicit. The article is advocating for a public policy position, it relates to the topic of suicide, and it describes the hardships of the author. The merit of the position is irrelevant to the fact that this article has been so effective in evoking an emotive response from you, that simply a rational description of its content has ma…

To me your reaction is just as emotional. Your emotions require you to attempt to be analytical, dispassionate and transcend the issue. It's possible to have empathy for the author and be agnostic to any perceived rhetorical goals.

Re: Daddy isn’t coming back

#306

Post by Barrin92 »

themacguffinman wrote: post #298
Barrin92 wrote: post #292

Earlier quoted context omitted.

someone who suffers from suicidal tendencies as a result of mental illness is in no capacity to make these decisions, they're as incapable of making actual decisions as a minor, probably more so and should be institutionalized. The right to self-determination derives from an assumption of someone being in a clear state of mind, that's why we have plenty of conditions under which we withdraw that right.

How wonderfully tautological this is: those with suicidal tendencies are deemed incapable of making the choice due to "mental illness". How can you tell if they're mentally ill? You look for symptoms of course, symptoms like "they have suicidal tendencies".

no, it's not tautological at all. There are categories of suicide that are clearly defensible, like euthanasia for end of life patients who have made the decision that any quality of life is irredeemably lost, for example.

But the 38 year old husband, the subject of the article, who was in an unstable mental state to the point where his wife felt threatened and left for the safety of their children was certainly not in command of his mental faculties.

Someone who is schizophrenic and bipolar and experiences a psychotic break after drastically changing their medication regimen is not in a sound state of mind, and they would be the first to admit it once their condition improves.

Re: Daddy isn’t coming back

#307

Post by favorited »

R0b0t1 wrote: post #251
favorited wrote: post #234

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's nonsense. You are not "provably not treating it" – you are provably not curing it. If the people who receive the most chemotherapy sessions have the highest rates of cancer deaths, does that mean that oncologists are "provably not treating" cancer?

In those treatment there is a metric that indicates success. For this it is not so clear, the main indicators saying "does not knowably prevent death and raises possibility of future death."

The same metric exists here. Various cancer survivor rates are measured by the average number of years someone survives after diagnosis, regardless of the rate of remission. How many years of life does treatment buy a patient, given the kind of cancer and the stage at which it is discovered?

Your argument is "more people who are suicidal enough to warrant involuntary commitment end up killing themselves than people who don't reach that point, therefore commitment causes (or at least does nothing to prevent) suicide," which is absolutely illogical.

This is beyond "I don't understand 'correlation != causation,'" and is into either "willful ignorance" or "I enjoy hearing myself talk" territory.

Re: Daddy isn’t coming back

#308

Post by kataklasm »

rubyist5eva wrote: post #302
kreeben wrote: post #257

Earlier quoted context omitted.

These are just suggestions, but what if you just told yourself, "hey, world, I need a break". I know it's hard to find time for yourself. But what if you did it at night? Your wife and kid, they're both asleep and you've already decided, tomorrow is going to be a sick day, this is my time, and so you put on Real Steel and just become immersed? After that, watch another one. Or a whole series on Netflix. Turn that day…

I will keep that in mind. I'm up late working a lot lately, maybe a night to just watch a stupid movie instead and sleep in is just what I need.

It's rare to find these thoughtful and sincerely kind threads on the internet these days, but this thread, the one you started, really touched me. HN is truly a wonderful and magnificent place in this wide cosmos of ones and zeroes. Thank you a lot, rubyist5eva, for being such a valuable member of the community and for starting this immensely valuable thread. What you did isn't easy, sharing one's own low points in life, but you did so anyway and made a lot of peoples day! Thank you for being you, keep at it and allow yourself a break now and then. You got this.

Re: Daddy isn’t coming back

#309

Post by Aerroon »

jolux wrote: post #276
sneak wrote: post #266

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Suicide is a human right. Interfering with someone's basic right to self-determination is absolutely despicable, no matter how ill the person is.

It's not quite as simple as that. One of the reasons the suicide rate is so high in the US is because of how easy it is to access firearms. This suggests that peoples' propensity to commit suicide is at least somewhat dependent on their environment. Given that, do you want to make their environment more or less likely to cause them to commit suicide? I'm in the latter category. As for the concern about basic rights,…

>One of the reasons the suicide rate is so high in the US is because of how easy it is to access firearms.

Is this actually true? I know it's said quite often, but there are countries with much much higher suicide rates where firearms aren't nearly as ubiquitous. Eg Lithuania.

Re: Daddy isn’t coming back

#310

Post by [deleted] »

Barrin92 wrote: post #306
themacguffinman wrote: post #298

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How wonderfully tautological this is: those with suicidal tendencies are deemed incapable of making the choice due to "mental illness". How can you tell if they're mentally ill? You look for symptoms of course, symptoms like "they have suicidal tendencies".

no, it's not tautological at all. There are categories of suicide that are clearly defensible, like euthanasia for end of life patients who have made the decision that any quality of life is irredeemably lost, for example. But the 38 year old husband, the subject of the article, who was in an unstable mental state to the point where his wife felt threatened and left for the safety of their children was certainly not…

[deleted]
Post reply on HN