_Patient_Casual Contributor
Duty of care
It's nice when humans care for each other. I appreciate every hug and gentle word when I've been at my worst, and the sense of camaraderie, of family, that I feel with my loved ones has pulled me back from the brink more than once. But this insistence that suicide must always be resisted (ostensibly because "it will get better"), is a narrow-minded throwback to moral precepts that don't always apply today - and is ignorant and damaging, in my opinion.
Is it really so unbelievable to think that death might be the lesser of two evils? The persistence of the death penalty across cultures and millennia, and the increasing acceptability of euthanasia today, both suggest that human societies broadly do allow some breathing room for edge cases. So why not me?
Moral invalidation of suicide means I can't talk to my friends or family about it, because instead of having a meaningful, fruitful conversation about my future, they're limited to hugs and discouragement - which is to say, they're required to insist that I go on suffering, because opting out cannot possibly be right. Duty of care properly discharged, then.
It means that I can't transition out of my professional duties in a responsible way - I'm just not going to turn up one day and they'll have to deal with it. It means can't make preparations in the open, working to minimise trauma to my loved ones, or secure humane methods (in behalf of my own duty of care to myself). I have to keep it all secret like some kind of heretic, and then spring it on them in one foul, shocking moment that will scar them for life, hoping that a note will help them. I have to die a criminal, in uncontrolled conditions, and leave a trail of destruction in my wake. How is that the moral way?