Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[sluissa]

The first step in demonstrating suicidal influence is to
look at the fatal harm a parent’s suicide often causes. A 2010
study from Johns Hopkins University in the May 2010 issue
of the Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent
Psychiatry showed that children (eighteen years old or
younger) of suicide victims are three times as likely to commit
suicide at some future point, compared with people who
reach eighteen with neither parent having committed suicide.5
The study looked at the whole Swedish population over thirty
years. Investigators in Sweden and the United States examined
suicides, psychiatric hospitalizations, and violent crime convictions
in more than 500,000 Swedish children, teens, and
adults under the age of twenty-five who had lost a parent to
suicide, accident, or disease compared with nearly four million
children, teens, and young adults with living parents. A
suicide by a parent while a child was under the age of eighteen
tripled the likelihood that that child would commit suicide.
Children under thirteen who lost a parent to illness had no
increased risk for suicide when compared with children with
living parents. The study also found that children who lost
parents to suicide were almost twice as likely to be hospitalized
for depression as those with living parents; those who lost
parents to accidents had a 30 percent higher risk for hospitalization
for depression, and for those who lost parents by illness
the risk was 40 percent higher

Or maybe, just maybe, there's common elements to both parent and child which instill the same thoughts independently of each other. A parent having trouble economically is likely to have a child that has trouble economically as well. Genetics also plays a role as some people are simply more predisposed to depression.

[SalmonGod]

We all doom our kids to future issues.  My parents doomed me to Alzheimers, and I did the same to my kids by having them.  Alcoholism can be genetic and also correlates strongly with suicide, and one of my best friends who was married to the one with cerebral palsy is predisposed.  Having kids in poverty dooms them to future issues.  I've said my piece not too long ago on determining who should or shouldn't have kids.

[PTTG??]

I think this is all getting rather far away from the core of the considerations about gun control. People don't really care about suicide as gun violence, generally, because of an important and often disregarded part of risk management: people have a preference for risks that are on "their terms."

People intuitively prefer driving to riding in a plane, smoking to "wifi radiation," and state violence to terrorism, because in each case, the preferred form of risk is one that, at least naively, the person in question can control. If you die in a plane crash, you're just doomed. If you die in a car crash, you probably went out fighting to the very end -- or at least we prefer to believe. Likewise, you can quit smoking whenever you like, but trivial (or imaginary) radiation sources around you are insidious. A generic, imagined terrorist might target anyone, but the police only target criminals, at least in theory.

This is why we allow cars to be such unsafe deathtraps while fearing airplanes. It's why TSA security theater is so popular.

This isn't to say that people are wrong to want to control guns (I for one want to see guns restricted to well-regulated militias, as the second amendment clearly states). But it is why arguments regarding actual deaths is less effective than arguments regarding powerlessness. Ultimately, people would rather have a poor chance of winning a rigged fight than they would have a good chance of avoiding some instant death. So look for a way to argue that gun control is a way of taking back power and you'll get a strong argument. I think that the March For Our Lives has it right: "We want this policy, and unresponsive politicians have taken the power to make that policy away from us."

*Did you read that it's beginning to look like Alzheimers is going to be treatable? I'm quite hopeful, myself.

[wierd]

Indeed!  There are already several promising bloodtests that can catch it early, and coupled with a treatment, it means the disease can be prevented from reaching severe progression--- Assuming of course, the healthcare system gets the resources it actually needs, and we stop shoveling money into insurance (and pharmaceutical) company pockets....


Also, the concept you are describing has a colloquial name:
"Better the devil you know."

People prefer the extremely dangerous mode of transport (personal auto) over much safer modes of transit (Train, airplane, etc), because it is a devil they know, vs one they don't.

[wierd]

Indeed. However, the flipside is pure hubris:  Treatment is "always successful"-- (No, I mean ALWAYS, because we take away the person's agency and put them in a facility that enforces that removal of agency, even when counseling, therapy, and medication fail to remove the deeply seated desire to self-terminate.), so allowing the person to self-terminate is never justified.

Compare:  Imagine a world where somebody refusing to get married and get pregnant is considered "Out of their mind", and they are put in a facility where that is assured to happen, they are shot full of drugs to induce feelings of longing for progeny, and the outcome is "assured" and this is considered the correct and proper thing.

I view forced life the same way as forced conception. It is heinous.  When the person is absolutely sure that yes-- they totally DO NOT want to continue being alive, you dont have the right to force them to stay alive to suit your preferences.

[wierd]

I dont view it as a failure;  I view it as the due diligence to prove purposeful, rational intent.

When you have provided every remedy available for irrational decision making, and the desire persists, you must accept that the decision is indeed rational-- they KNOW what they are doing, why they are doing it, and what the full implication and consequence of that decision are.

Suicide is one of those things that happens frequently without that kind of rational thought. Spur of the moment-- the knife is right there, sitting on the counter, and 'what the hell, I will just get it over with."   The counseling, the therapy, the medications--- those are there to rule out this kind of diseased impulse reaction. What is left over, when those treatments are not successful, are the true cases where a person really, and truly wishes to self-terminate, and is of sound mind when doing so. The proper thing to do, is honor their agency.

[hector13]

I’m not sure I can agree to that. The brain is an incredibly complex thing, and not all medication will have the same effects on different people. Same for therapies. One of the biggest things about therapies is you have to have a desire for it to work for it to be effective, which isn’t going to exist for a depressive. It also depends on the person doing the therapy. If they’re a dick, you won’t respond to it the same way as if they were someone’s you could respect.

You can also bring someone back from self-destructive behaviours short of suicide. Alcoholic? Take away the alcohol, treat the physical, psychological and behavioral aspects of the addiction.

Gambling addict? Send their photo to every gambling establishment in the area and beyond, treat the psychological and behavioral aspects of the addiction.

Suicide? Too bad, nice knowing you.

There are situations in which suicide is reasonable (incurable degenerative/terminal disease) but outside of those, no.

[martinuzz]

There are situations in which suicide is reasonable (incurable/terminal disease) but outside of those, no.

In that case it's not suicide, it's called euthanasia. Note that over here in the Netherlands, it is even possible since a few years, for psychiatric patients, and very old people that don't have an incurable medical condition but are just tired of life, to get euthanasia.

It's not done carelessly though. Before a psychiatric patient can ask for euthanasia, all possible forms of treatment must have been tried and have failed, and the patient must be deemed in capacity.

Keyword for euthanasia is 'quality of life'. If no possible treatment available can improve someone's quality of life such, that they don't prefer dying over life, a judge will most likely grant permission for the doctor to euthanize a patient.

Note that I personally think that Dutch euthanasia laws might have gone a bit too far. I am not against euthanasia in all cases of people suffering from a psychlogical disorder, but I also believe a lot of the distress from those disorders stems from society and not from within the patient. It's a dangerous slippery slope to allow euthanasia for the depressed and lonely.

But could we please get back to Ameripol? I saw no replies yet to Trump kickin 60 diplomats out of the country, some 4-5 pages ago.

[Doomblade187]

We should probably make a mental health discussion thread, honestly. Though we may have one lying around. The topic has grown more personal to me these past few years.

[sluissa]

There's not much to say about 60 Russian "diplomats" getting expelled.

While I agree that it's "something" at least. And the symbolism can't be ignored. It still seems like an ill thought out move.

I personally think kicking out the known spies is a bit of a dumb move, since it leaves only the unknown ones. Both sides have a long history of letting spies reside peacefully in that they might be turned or at least watched for info or fed false info to take back.

There really isn't much of a reason to need massive amounts of staff at embassies and consulates anymore either as so much is done electronically.

And considering Russia was planning (never could find if it happened or not) July of last year to seize 2 US properties in Russia and kick out over 750 "diplomatic staff". 60 really seems like a token gesture on our side.

[Loud Whispers]

I personally think kicking out the known spies is a bit of a dumb move, since it leaves only the unknown ones.

I'm lost for words

[sluissa]

I personally think kicking out the known spies is a bit of a dumb move, since it leaves only the unknown ones.

I'm lost for words

Think of it like this. You know you've got a massive organized crime problem. You find evidence that there's a guy that's laundering some money for them. Obviously not enough that you've caught the single source, but it's definitely connected. Do you go in and knock this one small fry down immediately? Or do you watch him and hope he leads you elsewhere to the bigger fish?

[JoshuaFH]

I personally think kicking out the known spies is a bit of a dumb move, since it leaves only the unknown ones.

I'm lost for words

That's cause he kicked out all the known words, and left only the unknown ones.

[Trekkin]

I personally think kicking out the known spies is a bit of a dumb move, since it leaves only the unknown ones.

I'm lost for words

Think of it like this. You know you've got a massive organized crime problem. You find evidence that there's a guy that's laundering some money for them. Obviously not enough that you've caught the single source, but it's definitely connected. Do you go in and knock this one small fry down immediately? Or do you watch him and hope he leads you elsewhere to the bigger fish?

Apparently you scramble to flip all the laundromat personnel you aren't already misleading, because why would we have laundromats when everyone wears full-body tinfoil suits these days anyway?

[Starver]

I'm surprised that Trump did the expulsions, to be honest. I can only imagine he's getting flack from people he won't publicly listen to (and they won't publicly speak up) over the bad optics. Heck, it could even be a note slipped under his door saying "Dear Donald, I suggest you do something in response to this 'incident', or it totally looks like you're in my pocket - XXX, Vlad".


(BTW: I like to examine US politics by watching (time-lagged, for various scheduling reasons) some C-SPAN shows that get broadcast over here in the UK, like Washington Journal. When they get rebroadcast here, they get British callers in on the phone-in discussion, giving a 'British' outlook on the issue of the day. WHY IS IT ONLY EVER THE CRAZY ONES?!?!? In response to the school shooting issue, I'm hearing this guy (sounds normal, otherwise) extolling the anti-death properties of a Catholic talisman against 'evil', like many of the bulletproof jujus you hear 'given' to rebel fighters in 3rd-world civil wars. Although it makes a change from the Trumpite Brits who appear to have drunk the same Deplorable Kool-Aid they serve at Trump rallies (another thing I get to watch, and do so even though I can feel my braincells dying as I force myself to listen to his freeform baloney) and uphold many of the misconceptions about things such as Islamic Invasions, etc. Look, you USians, obviously the saner of us limeys don't call your networks. Even the probably-defined-as-ultra-liberal-MSM C-SPAN network.)