Help am i the asshole?

[VivaldiBR]

Was this in response to me? I wouldn't ever decide someone else's life- i just have a strong opinion.

Not at all. It was a response to her friend.

 

[mahakaliSS_MahaDurga]

Maybe he just became fond of you and doesn't want you to do CTB. Its friendship.

No, he is a patronizing mysoginist and a pro-lifer who is trying to stop her from moving ahead, her REAL friends are the people who are encouraging her to die by suicide. -.-

 

[GoodPersonEffed]

Maybe he just became fond of you and doesn't want you to do CTB. Its friendship.

When we get attached to someone it's hard to let go. Depending on the level of the friendship, I would try to persuade, regardless of how hypocritical and selfish this may seem. I know that here on the forum I couldn't do that, but on another platform it would be possible. But I understand the point perfectly.

It is kind of selfish to think that you can decide someone else's life, but it is also very subjective to think that you are already "ready". Depending on the conversation and the determination, I would only wish good luck. But I'm not trying to convince anyone. I'm trying to be honest, and say that maybe I would do the same, depending on the friendship and the circumstances. But again, I understand the point perfectly.

Honestly, this all feels kinda-definitely yucky.

I recognize that may be uncomfortable to hear, but I sincerely hope you'll consider my perspective. It's not an attack, but a caveat.

When someone identifies a red flag and another person tells them they're misinterpreting, that there's a benign reason for the offending behavior, that it comes from good intentions...that's telling the person to not listen to their gut, to not trust themselves, and to take down their boundary. An ally doesn't do that. An ally protects another friend's treasures, does not expose them to others to take more.

It's being a flying monkey for the person who was being aggressive, manipulative, dismissive, etc. bu tcontinuing to do their effort for them when they're not there. It's looking out for that person's best interests, guarding the treasure they're trying to steal and trying to make it accessible to them, just as you'd want someone to do for you, perhaps? Not an accusation, but something to consider.

And, I know this may not feel good to hear, but in the third quote, the following words assisted that other person by doubling down on exactly what troubled the OP: it is also very subjective to think that you are already "ready." In the OP, @ecmnesia already said she is grown, capable and aware, and I get a sense that you're trying to pull her off of that rather than shore it up to support it.

So yeah, if you would do the same as the OP contained about with your own friends and consider it justifiable, and if your wishes and convenience come before their autonomy and self-determination, well, that feels pretty yucky to me. If I were your friend, I wouldn't ask myself if I were being the asshole, and I wouldn't call you one either, but I'd point this stuff out and ask you to knock it off and to either be supportive or disengage. If you didn't, the next step would be for me to disengage from you because you're not being safe for me, but being manipulative and controlling, no matter how good you think your intentions are, they're not about me at all. I'm hardly present in my own story, but instead it becomes yours and I get put in the supporting role.

Most times when I point something out like this irl, the person's first response is to backpedal and defend: "No, I didn't mean that! You've got it all wrong! What I meant was...." and then, in trying to save face, they actually dig the hole a little deeper. But sometimes, even if they do that, when they get a little distance from the conversation, they can see my perspective is about actions and not them as a person, and realize their stance wasn't helpful, it actually was doing harm, and get past the discomfort and no longer have that stance going forward. It results in better relationships because it creates safety and trustworthiness, because that person is now on the side of their friend and no longer a flying monkey for someone who already proved to not be on their side.

Sending respect. This was in no way meant to beat you down.

 

[Symbiote]

Hormonal imbalance my ass, how dare he invalidate your concerns by spouting off that nonsensical bullshit. Every time a woman is in distress, misogynist assholes refer it as "ohhh she must be having a hormone issue or imbalance". Fuck that dude, don't let anyone control you or decide for you.

 

[botanormal]

Absolutely not the asshole! Your friend of all people should be able to respect your choice, he knew what kind of forum this was and so should've tried to be more understanding towards your decision. I hope he had positive intentions with this, but it sounds like he's focusing on his own feelings rather than yours, and doesn't seem to have your best interests in mind. I think it's important to put yourself and your own feelings first, so if you were hurt by what he said (which is completely understandable by the way, I would be the same), then stepping back from the conversation was definitely the right call, and you did absolutely nothing wrong.

 

[VivaldiBR]

Honestly, this all feels kinda-definitely yucky.

I recognize that may be uncomfortable to hear, but I sincerely hope you'll consider my perspective. It's not an attack, but a caveat.

When someone identifies a red flag and another person tells them they're misinterpreting, that there's a benign reason for the offending behavior, that it comes from good intentions...that's telling the person to not listen to their gut, to not trust themselves, and to take down their boundary. An ally doesn't do that. An ally protects another friend's treasures, does not expose them to others to take more.

It's being a flying monkey for the person who was being aggressive, manipulative, dismissive, etc. bu tcontinuing to do their effort for them when they're not there. It's looking out for that person's best interests, guarding the treasure they're trying to steal and trying to make it accessible to them, just as you'd want someone to do for you, perhaps? Not an accusation, but something to consider.

And, I know this may not feel good to hear, but in the third quote, the following words assisted that other person by doubling down on exactly what troubled the OP: it is also very subjective to think that you are already "ready." In the OP, @ecmnesia already said she is grown, capable and aware, and I get a sense that you're trying to pull her off of that rather than shore it up to support it.

So yeah, if you would do the same as the OP contained about with your own friends and consider it justifiable, and if your wishes and convenience come before their autonomy and self-determination, well, that feels pretty yucky to me. If I were your friend, I wouldn't ask myself if I were being the asshole, and I wouldn't call you one either, but I'd point this stuff out and ask you to knock it off and to either be supportive or disengage. If you didn't, the next step would be for me to disengage from you because you're not being safe for me, but being manipulative and controlling, no matter how good you think your intentions are, they're not about me at all. I'm hardly present in my own story, but instead it becomes yours and I get put in the supporting role.

Most times when I point something out like this irl, the person's first response is to backpedal and defend: "No, I didn't mean that! You've got it all wrong! What I meant was...." and then, in trying to save face, they actually dig the hole a little deeper. But sometimes, even if they do that, when they get a little distance from the conversation, they can see my perspective is about actions and not them as a person, and realize their stance wasn't helpful, it actually was doing harm, and get past the discomfort and no longer have that stance going forward. It results in better relationships because it creates safety and trustworthiness, because that person is now on the side of their friend and no longer a flying monkey for someone who already proved to not be on their side.

Sending respect. This was in no way meant to beat you down.

Do not worry. I didn't find it offensive, nor was it difficult to read your words. I got your point. But I don't entirely agree with everything.

Helping and trying to talk someone not to CTB is not wrong. The way her friend did it was very aggressive, manipulative and misogynistic, and we can all agree with that. There are several ways that he could have done this without necessarily cutting off the person's autonomy or doubting his conclusions about her own life. But we have to be aware of the narrow view that some people may have when they are in depressed states (and i'm not saying it's her case). I think it is worth a good conversation, with all possible respect and empathy.

I personally cannot encourage it. Sorry, @mahakali88

and, @ecmnesia, you are not asshole at all.

 

[GoodPersonEffed]

I'm glad you didn't take my comment as offensive. I tried my best to word it in a respectful, non-controlling, non-condemning way, to speak from a position that I feel confident in but not so strong that it becomes overbearing.

I accept that our stances do not align, and that there may not be any movement toward that. I'll debate just a bit here, and then move on so as not to head into the realm of arguing, because what I sense from your stance is a desire to have power over another, rather than to grant that another has power over themselves -- and has a right to that power.

Helping and trying to talk someone not to CTB is not wrong...There are several ways that he could have done this without necessarily cutting off the person's autonomy

Well, trying to talk someone out of it in the guise of helping or any other reason is about the one talking, about their preference for that person, not about the person considering suicide. It's a negation of their autonomy. I don't see in any way that it is an acceptance, let alone an affirmation, of their autonomy. I can see telling someone, "This is my view about it, and I feel strongly, but once I say it, then I respect you enough to step back and let you decide for yourself, even if you don't agree with me."

Kind of like I'm doing now. I state my stance, I clarify and restate it when it's not accepted, and then I let go. After this comment, I'll let go and move on, because I don't control you. I take from the exchange a better understanding of you, and what I could expect from you if I wanted support, and with that knowledge and acceptance, I know it would be better for me to seek support from someone else regarding this subject, should the need arise, since our core motivations and values sharply differ here. If it were someone else considering suicide, then I would once again speak up if I sensed negation of autonomy, either directly or flying monkey style. I don't push for another to suicide or to live, but to support them if they want support in making an informed decision, especially one of such magnitude. I don't hand them the method or offer to do it for them, but I don't stand in their way, either -- that to me is what's right, just as your stance is to you what's right.

But we have to be aware of the narrow view that some people may have when they are in depressed states (and i'm not saying it's her case). I think it is worth a good conversation, with all possible respect and empathy.

When I read this, it sounded to me like it was coming from a psychiatrist, someone in a position of power over another, who denies they can reason for themselves and insists that an emotional state of depression is always unreasonable and always overpowers autonomy and self-determination, as if the person suffering and seeking an end to the suffering were actually suffering from delusion. But, there is a concession to grant as much respect and empathy as possible while holding on to that power position. It's an infantilizing perspective.

When I read "we," there's this sense of persuasive rhetoric, a triangulation attempt that says, "This is where the power is, this is where 'right' is." Personally, I catch myself being in a weak position if I feel I need a "we" to back me up and can't stand on my own. Yes, I know it's a figure of speech, but there's a lot of subconscious stuff that goes on with figures of speech that is often quite revealing of the speaker's position. From another perspective, in academic writing, there's standing on the shoulders of giants out of humility, to give credit for influencing one's thinking since, depending on the subject (e.g., medicine) one dare not stand in their own power of thinking alone, and then there's "we" against the one being disagreed with to gain power over. I get a sense of both here, but really the latter since no school of thought was named. With that sense, it's clearly not a rallying of forces to cheer on the other's autonomy and self-determination!

Anyhow, I've said my piece. If you're not convinced, okey-dokey.

Sincerely wishing you well.

 

[ecmnesia]

That is not a friend. Not even in the slightest. What in the actual fuck. I am wondering what you guys connected with over in the first place, and if this was a sudden departure from the normal opinions expressed in your conversations?

Does this person see you as more than a friend or was this some type of two faced agenda from the beginning? Because either way their response goes way too far to be explained by a regretful future loss of a friend. How bizarre.

he was new on the forum and was researching some methods to cbt as well, since we both share the same mother tongue he reached out asking me to explain some things and recommend good source material. i tried to help because it was clear he had no idea whatsoever about what he was doing, considering his plan he'd probably end up disabled. at some point tho, we opened up more about our background and stuff.

as expected we forged a friendship I guess. I talked him out of cbt once, but honestly i believe I was very respectful and I only did what I did because he was clearly not sure about it (i even told him at the time that it felt like he was being pressured by his partner), his plan was not reliable and it was pretty obvious, considering what he was saying, that he didn't really want to die.

i never sugarcoated anything to him and only said what i really deeply believed it. but at some point, i started noticing how sickly positive he was about everything. i have absolutely nothing against those who see life through a better lense, if they can back up their point of views of course... and idk, he just started saying all those cliche superficial stuff.

idk what's up with him.
____________________

and from the bottom of my heart, thank you all for your support. I really appreciate it and it made me feel better about my decision to get away from him.

So far it's been too hard for me to stand up against other for the sake of myself and although I might cbt soon, it was a huge step for me, and (not to brag, but...) i am proud of myself.

anyway, thanks a lot, this community is awesome and you guys are amazing. wish you all the best.

 

[GoodPersonEffed]

So, were you really wondering if you were being an asshole and needed clarity...or were you calling him out without naming him hoping he would see others calling him on the behavior...or both? Or something else?

I ask because if it's the second one, it's shaming without naming, and getting others to be flying monkeys and take part in a power play against this person. Far better to notify the mods, and even to name the member here if they're doing subversive pro-life activity to "save lives," and so invite them to take part in the conversation and speak up for themselves -- in other words, to be assertive and direct. Of course, that person has the ability to step in here at any time.

I don't know, it just seems like inciting a public group attack under the guise of problem-solving, or maybe a combination of both. That's why I didn't comment directly to the original post, because it felt sticky. I felt like, as much as I disagree with what was presented, I don't want to label that person as an asshole (I prefer to try to accurately identify behaviors), and I don't want to go on the defensive against them, and I felt like there was an invitation to label and to defend. It feels like being roped in without enough information that's readily available since it's someone on the forum and not irl, and therefore potentially a personal power play, like in high school.

Sorry, OP, I really like your posts and am always glad to provide support. In this case, it just feels like it's not about the same kind of support.

 

[ecmnesia]

So, were you really wondering if you were being an asshole and needed clarity...or were you calling him out without naming him hoping he would see others calling him on the behavior...or both? Or something else?

I ask because if it's the second one, it's shaming without naming, and getting others to be flying monkeys and take part in a power play against this person. Far better to notify the mods, and even to name the member here if they're doing subversive pro-life activity to "save lives," and so invite them to take part in the conversation and speak up for themselves -- in other words, to be assertive and direct. Of course, that person has the ability to step in here at any time.

I don't know, it just seems like inciting a public group attack under the guise of problem-solving, or maybe a combination of both. That's why I didn't comment directly to the original post, because it felt sticky. I felt like, as much as I disagree with what was presented, I don't want to label that person as an asshole (I prefer to try to accurately identify behaviors), and I don't want to go on the defensive against them, and I felt like there was an invitation to label and to defend. It feels like being roped in without enough information that's readily available since it's someone on the forum and not irl, and therefore potentially a personal power play, like in high school.

Sorry, OP, I really like your posts and am always glad to provide support. In this case, it just feels like it's not about the same kind of support.

no problem. I understand what you are saying, as I made this mistake of shaming without naming once. This time tho, it was only about me really seeking out support. All of those things i mentioned here, I told him when we were talking, so it was absolutely not my intention to write this so he could see it. In fact, the user i am talking about doesn't even use the forum anymore, although there is still a possibility that he'd login in and see this.

I was just wondering if I was being rude to someone who was supposedly looking out for my best interest. Because although I do believe that I am in my right mind and that i am capable enough to make this call, since I've reflected for months on the matter, considering pros and cons, nothing could guarantee that I was just putting up a defense (idk how to explain it cause English is not my first language, but like, when you have no arguments to defend your point and feeling cornered you start blaming the other person as a way to escape and not having to deal with the possibility that you are probably wrong).
Plus, i do not wish to label him as an asshole. Despite all of this, this guy was a good friend for the time being and we had some meaningful important conversations. He is not perfect tho, and I feel like his projecting some of his feelings regarding his own situation in me, instead of supporting me. I can't really find any excuse for the way he acted. And in fact, i believe he fucked up, i felt completely disrespected. No one is either back or white, tho, there are good positive things about him as well. Unfortunately, this time, the bad ones spoke louder.
Perhaps I should have not talked about this on the forum, considering that he is/was a member. But really, i had nowhere else to seek support/help. Sorry :/

 

[GoodPersonEffed]

I was just wondering if I was being rude to someone who was supposedly looking out for my best interest. Because although I do believe that I am in my right mind and that i am capable enough to make this call, since I've reflected for months on the matter, considering pros and cons, nothing could guarantee that I was just putting up a defense (idk how to explain it cause English is not my first language, but like, when you have no arguments to defend your point and feeling cornered you start blaming the other person as a way to escape and not having to deal with the possibility that you are probably wrong).

Thank you for clarifying!

That was a great explanation, and I can see how you're trying to do a self-check.

When gaining the self-respect to claim and maintain a boundary, it's natural to question if one is being rude or doing harm. I thought from your post that you really nailed it in the sentence about how you're a grown woman, etc. -- you know your self, your boundary, your capability, etc. And you also identified that your autonomy and boundaries were not being recognized or respected. So, no, you weren't being an asshole. You also weren't receiving from him the kind of feedback you were seeking, the kind that you gave to him, that is, noticing what one is overlooking in order to make the most informed self-determination. You don't seem to me to have overlooked him being helpful and supportive, it doesn't seem to me from what you said that such things were there. When he responded, the issues you brought up were not agreed to be the issues or the focus. Basically, he didn't agree to have the same conversation as the one you introduced. Hormones were not the issue, and not being capable of identifying your problems was not the issue, his treatment of you, such as his negation of you, became the predominant issues, became the conversation. That's my take on it.

 

[Meditation guide]

I can't really find any excuse for the way he acted. And in fact, i believe he fucked up, i felt completely disrespected.

I think he led you on for a bit to set you up to be disrespected. His mask slipped off. This was his purpose from the start.
What you saw at first was an act. He hoped you were vulnerable enough to put up with it to have his friendship.

 

[VivaldiBR]

I'm glad you didn't take my comment as offensive. I tried my best to word it in a respectful, non-controlling, non-condemning way, to speak from a position that I feel confident in but not so strong that it becomes overbearing.

I accept that our stances do not align, and that there may not be any movement toward that. I'll debate just a bit here, and then move on so as not to head into the realm of arguing, because what I sense from your stance is a desire to have power over another, rather than to grant that another has power over themselves -- and has a right to that power.



Well, trying to talk someone out of it in the guise of helping or any other reason is about the one talking, about their preference for that person, not about the person considering suicide. It's a negation of their autonomy. I don't see in any way that it is an acceptance, let alone an affirmation, of their autonomy. I can see telling someone, "This is my view about it, and I feel strongly, but once I say it, then I respect you enough to step back and let you decide for yourself, even if you don't agree with me."

Kind of like I'm doing now. I state my stance, I clarify and restate it when it's not accepted, and then I let go. After this comment, I'll let go and move on, because I don't control you. I take from the exchange a better understanding of you, and what I could expect from you if I wanted support, and with that knowledge and acceptance, I know it would be better for me to seek support from someone else regarding this subject, should the need arise, since our core motivations and values sharply differ here. If it were someone else considering suicide, then I would once again speak up if I sensed negation of autonomy, either directly or flying monkey style. I don't push for another to suicide or to live, but to support them if they want support in making an informed decision, especially one of such magnitude. I don't hand them the method or offer to do it for them, but I don't stand in their way, either -- that to me is what's right, just as your stance is to you what's right.




When I read this, it sounded to me like it was coming from a psychiatrist, someone in a position of power over another, who denies they can reason for themselves and insists that an emotional state of depression is always unreasonable and always overpowers autonomy and self-determination, as if the person suffering and seeking an end to the suffering were actually suffering from delusion. But, there is a concession to grant as much respect and empathy as possible while holding on to that power position. It's an infantilizing perspective.

When I read "we," there's this sense of persuasive rhetoric, a triangulation attempt that says, "This is where the power is, this is where 'right' is." Personally, I catch myself being in a weak position if I feel I need a "we" to back me up and can't stand on my own. Yes, I know it's a figure of speech, but there's a lot of subconscious stuff that goes on with figures of speech that is often quite revealing of the speaker's position. From another perspective, in academic writing, there's standing on the shoulders of giants out of humility, to give credit for influencing one's thinking since, depending on the subject (e.g., medicine) one dare not stand in their own power of thinking alone, and then there's "we" against the one being disagreed with to gain power over. I get a sense of both here, but really the latter since no school of thought was named. With that sense, it's clearly not a rallying of forces to cheer on the other's autonomy and self-determination!

Anyhow, I've said my piece. If you're not convinced, okey-dokey.

Sincerely wishing you well.

Yeah. You didn't convinced at all.
I understand your view as libertarian one. I might agree that we have our freedom and no one can dictate our will, our body, our life and so on. But a friend is not a institution. He cannot really stop you by force and lock you in a medical institution. Its not the family or the state. Its only a person that somebody met online and made a particulary bond. Two souls in pain.

 

[GoodPersonEffed]

Yeah. You didn't convinced at all.
I understand your view as libertarian one. I might agree that we have our freedom and no one can dictate our will, our body, our life and so on. But a friend is not a institution. He cannot really stop you by force and lock you in a medical institution. Its not the family or the state. Its only a person that somebody met online and made a particulary bond. Two souls in pain.

Just to clarify, my view is not politically based. It's boundaries based. Power is involved in all relationships, and I'm into sharing power, not exerting it over others as my will, preferences, convenience, etc.

 

[VivaldiBR]

Just to clarify, my view is not politically based. It's boundaries based. Power is involved in all relationships, and I'm into sharing power, not exerting it over others as my will, preferences, convenience, etc.

I see. Its a beautiful belief. I agree that human relationships must be equal. But, honeslty, it shocks me that you extend this to something like CTB. I think i could never do that. Psychiatrists, psychologists, and other therapists studied a lot and they really can open our minds and help us to change our views. Not 100% of the cases, but they certanly have a knowlodged that most of us does not have. Mine psychologist does not put herself in a position of power, but thats her way. I know its very rare.

I feel very happy with this conversation. Thanks for being so polite. You certanly seems to be a very nice person.

 

[GoodPersonEffed]

But, honeslty, it shocks me that you extend this to something like CTB...Psychiatrists, psychologists, and other therapists studied a lot and they really can open our minds and help us to change our views.

Therapy definitely helped me with my views. It also helped me with acceptance, which we talked about in another thread. No matter how much my views have changed for the better, there are certain things that are beyond my power to change that deeply impact me for the worst. If those things are too much, and if with acceptance I understand they're beyond my power to change or manage, I have the...liberty to determine for myself if suicide is the best solution for me, and I extend the liberty of self-determination to others.

I've learned that it's crazy-making self-gaslighting to believe and act as if I have the power to make others do what I want them to do, and that it's unethical to try to manipulate them if it's not sufficient to change their mind by simply saying "I don't want you to" or "I don't agree with your decision and here's why"; that's not help, that's control. I've been manipulated and coerced with emotional blackmail in attempts to control me for much of my life, and I quite resent having my boundaries and autonomy denied and run right over. I won't do it to others, even if I disagree with the choices they make for themselves, and I've learned they respect and appreciate me for it. They know they can trust me with their hearts and their thoughts and explore them in the safe space of my presence. I'll share my perspective, and then it's up to them what to do, as it always was anyway.

As an analogy for my stance with regard to others' decisions, if suicide is the only way to escape an actual torture chamber, I'm not going to block someone from escape. If I stop them, I have no power to actually improve things for them, and I would be responsible to. So what right do I have to tell them the insanity of the torture chamber is affecting their thinking -- of course it is! -- and to stay because they can view and experience it differently? Or insist they just hold on because the torture may eventually stop?

We all have our limits, and I trust others to know their own.

Conversely, if they were going to decide for another to end their life, then I would full-on interfere. But an adult's life is their own to determine, including ending it. It's totally theirs. If they're fucking up by making that decision, it's their life to fuck up, even though it may impact others. I do not have to power to stop people from fucking up if they're determined to. If I think otherwise, then I'm codependent, and I'm focusing on what I have no power over as if I do have such power, and not paying attention to my own shit.

I think i could never do that.

I won't try to force you. :)

I feel very happy with this conversation. Thanks for being so polite. You certanly seems to be a very nice person.

I'm glad you're happy. Its been an interesting conversation. Thank you for being polite, too.




@ecmnesia, I hope you don't feel like this is derailing your thread, but if you do, I hope you'll speak up about your boundary! I'm happy to honor it.

 

[deleted]

you are free to do whatever you want with your life, with people wanting to support your decision or not

 

[PointlessStruggle]

Do as thou wilt. Whatever brings peace to you.

 

[mahakaliSS_MahaDurga]

Do not worry. I didn't find it offensive, nor was it difficult to read your words. I got your point. But I don't entirely agree with everything.

Helping and trying to talk someone not to CTB is not wrong. The way her friend did it was very aggressive, manipulative and misogynistic, and we can all agree with that. There are several ways that he could have done this without necessarily cutting off the person's autonomy or doubting his conclusions about her own life. But we have to be aware of the narrow view that some people may have when they are in depressed states (and i'm not saying it's her case). I think it is worth a good conversation, with all possible respect and empathy.

I personally cannot encourage it. Sorry, @mahakali88

and, @ecmnesia, you are not asshole at all.

I was being sarcastic.

 

[ecmnesia]

hope you don't feel like this is derailing your thread, but if you do, I hope you'll speak up about your boundary! I'm happy to honor it.

no, i am actually quite interested. please feel free to continue. thanks for asking tho.

If I stop them, I have no power to actually improve things for them, and I would be responsible to. So what right do I have to tell them the insanity of the torture chamber is affecting their thinking -- of course it is! -- and to stay because they can view and experience it differently? Or insist they just hold on because the torture may eventually stop?

We all have our limits, and I trust others to know their own.

i believe that was an awesome consideration.

But, honeslty, it shocks me that you extend this to something like CTB. I think i could never do that. Psychiatrists, psychologists, and other therapists studied a lot and they really can open our minds and help us to change our views.

I'd like to say something regarding that statement, tho. pardon me for any possible holes in my point cause I am fairly new on this topic. this mostly applies to psychiatrists, cause I am more familiar with the way they work.

generally speaking, whether it's physician or psychiatrist, no matter their personal good intentions, the power imbalance in a doctor-patient relationship is inevitable. doctors in general posses knowledge which allegedly gives them authority to define if a person is sick or not, and since most patients lack this kind of education, they are inevitably submitted to the doctors judgment without in most cases being able to properly question it, that can either happen because they do not posses the needed knowledge on the matter or because of the authority a doctor possesses just because he is a doctor, he studied the subject and therefore knows better.

there is also the fact that the medic field is deeply patronizing, psychiatry even more if you consider it's root. the sick are seen inherently as incapable and must be taken care of. that's explicitly clear on how medical conduct is determined, although modern mentality is slowly try to change this. the patient has little to no participation in the decisions that are made during his treatments. many doctors won't even explain their conditions properly, or layout different treatment possibilities, considering the patients particularities or preferences. which enhance even more the power play displayed in this relationship.

there is also the fact that doctors (and i'd like to add that i got most of what I am saying from the book The myth of mental illness + personal experience on the medical field) are obligated by law, federal or imposed by medical councils, to protect the "best interested of the patient", even if that so called "best interest" goes against the patients wishes. they have the power, if so they see fit, to break doctor-patient sygil anytime, recommending involuntary hospitalization for example. which once again enhances the power they hold. it's not an eye-to-eye relationship. it can be, if you are playing by the rules of what's considered healthy/acceptable, but there is no guarantee that your wishes will prevail if you are seen as a threat to yourself or/and others.

there is also the infamous question: what does it mean to be sick? what does it mean to be mental ill? who defines the criteria to that classification? and how were they defined? i don't know how to answer those questions, i am only engaging in the study of those topics, but if you look at it, it seems like the concept of mental illness is quite subjective and not solid sustained by physiological evidences.

i hope that's not confused. i tried my best to be clear. but i am not used to discussions.

 

[VivaldiBR]

I was being sarcastic.

From what i read on this threat i couldnt see the difference.
Please share your opinion, if you want it.

no, i am actually quite interested. please feel free to continue. thanks for asking tho.



i believe that was an awesome consideration.



I'd like to say something regarding that statement, tho. pardon me for any possible holes in my point cause I am fairly new on this topic. this mostly applies to psychiatrists, cause I am more familiar with the way they work.

generally speaking, whether it's physician or psychiatrist, no matter their personal good intentions, the power imbalance in a doctor-patient relationship is inevitable. doctors in general posses knowledge which allegedly gives them authority to define if a person is sick or not, and since most patients lack this kind of education, they are inevitably submitted to the doctors judgment without in most cases being able to properly question it, that can either happen because they do not posses the needed knowledge on the matter or because of the authority a doctor possesses just because he is a doctor, he studied the subject and therefore knows better.

there is also the fact that the medic field is deeply patronizing, psychiatry even more if you consider it's root. the sick are seen inherently as incapable and must be taken care of. that's explicitly clear on how medical conduct is determined, although modern mentality is slowly try to change this. the patient has little to no participation in the decisions that are made during his treatments. many doctors won't even explain their conditions properly, or layout different treatment possibilities, considering the patients particularities or preferences. which enhance even more the power play displayed in this relationship.

there is also the fact that doctors (and i'd like to add that i got most of what I am saying from the book The myth of mental illness + personal experience on the medical field) are obligated by law, federal or imposed by medical councils, to protect the "best interested of the patient", even if that so called "best interest" goes against the patients wishes. they have the power, if so they see fit, to break doctor-patient sygil anytime, recommending involuntary hospitalization for example. which once again enhances the power they hold. it's not an eye-to-eye relationship. it can be, if you are playing by the rules of what's considered healthy/acceptable, but there is no guarantee that your wishes will prevail if you are seen as a threat to yourself or/and others.

there is also the infamous question: what does it mean to be sick? what does it mean to be mental ill? who defines the criteria to that classification? and how were they defined? i don't know how to answer those questions, i am only engaging in the study of those topics, but if you look at it, it seems like the concept of mental illness is quite subjective and not solid sustained by physiological evidences.

i hope that's not confused. i tried my best to be clear. but i am not used to discussions.

They don't even know what causes depression. There are some evidences, of course.

But i was very lucky with my recent experiences. Both of my psychiatrist and psychologist are women, with modern and egalitarian approuch. They dont treat me as object but as a human. But it was a personal search of mine. I went after professionals with whom I could identify more and who could understand me better.

 

[TheGoodGuy]

he even suggested that it'd might be due to hormonal unbalance, and insisted that I should look for help, tho I made it clear that I dont want to be helped and get better.

I suspect you were talking to a pro lifer. They are devious. Sorry you had to go through that and be tricked that way. There is a group of them here who pretend.

@ecmnesia I gotta agree with @Meditation guide here. That is a pro/forced lifer it´s not someone who is pro-choice and want someone to end their suffering and no I don´t think you´re being an asshole the person you talked to however is and should not be on this forum if what you told was true; of course there are those who think you might be an asshole for ctb before Christmas but it´s a moral issue which is completely subjective so again no you´re not an asshole but if the person you talked to literally INSISTED that you should seek help it seems like he was trying to force you to keep being alive and not objectively helping you by weighing out the pro´s and con´s, if a person on this forum has made up their mind and have a solid plan you shouldn´t discourage them nor encourage them further just respect their wishes I know some who will at least tell people to reconsider okay fair enough despite I don´t agree with it but if you have said it once don´t keep INSISTING on it i.e. forcing your subjective moral opinion on people who want to end their suffering.

 

[next-season .?]

maybe he just have a bigger problem than u so he see ur storie very differntly

 

[liluglibih]

Neither of you are assholes imo. I think that when you make a connection with someone it's natural that you then don't want that person to hurt/kill themself. What you choose to do is your decision in the end, this just sounds like someone trying to make you try out all of your options before going straight to the final one