Let me start by saying that I live in Alberta. I've applied for MAiD and been turned down. I've since talked to my MP, my MLA, Alberta Health Services and the Ministry of Mental Health and Addictions. I've explained to them that I work jobs that I hate to sustain a life I don't want and it would be nice if they could pay my rent and my groceries if they're going to force me to live. They pretty much just plug their ears and go "na na na I can't hear you" but the people at 988 will actually pretend to listen and attempt to justify the wicked work they do.
I start off by saying "I have a suicide crisis. I really want to die, but I can't get access to the means for a humane and effective self-chosen end". I very calmly and logically state my position and I repeat as many times as necessary that I can't just die and that's the whole problem. This is important so that they don't call the cops. It also ties into the next part: "safety".
These people use the word "safety" and talk about "keeping you safe" and "working on a safety plan" a whole fuck of a lot. It's important to not let them get away with this abuse of the language. Again, I don't get viscerally angry, but sarcasm can be used here. When they ask if I'm safe, my answer is usually "no one is safe as long as the mental health act is in effect". They get a bit confused and try to rephrase the question. "Would you like to work on a safety plan"? Now, I do this a lot, so I've had multiple answers for this. "That sounds a whole lot like participating in my own slavery, so no thank you." Or "oh, there's no need. My 'safety' is already locked in. That's the crisis I'm calling with. I'm totally 'safe'." Using sarcasm when using the word 'safe' is really important.
What else is really important is informing these altruistic dumbells is the difference between facts, feelings and opinions. Any fact they don't like, they try to reframe as an opinion or a feeling. I don't let them do that. Not without a fight.
Finally, I break down how suicide prevention constitutes slavery. If a person owns a thing, they can destroy that thing for whatever reason they see fit or for no reason at all. Since the state is relieving me of the ability to destroy myself, they take on the burden of owning my life, rendering me state property. Then I tell them to give themselves a pat on the back for all the good work they do.
They'll remind me that no one is making me call them. Then I'll remind them that whether I called them or not, forcible suicide prevention would still be in effect. They'll assure me that they would only call the cops as a last resort. Then I'll assure them that such a thing still constitutes the use of force. They try to deny this because they see themselves as people who value consent. Thing is, if you can't consent to death on your own terms, then your whole life is in violation of your consent, so every single thing you do is done without your consent.
They usually don't appreciate the conversation.
I start off by saying "I have a suicide crisis. I really want to die, but I can't get access to the means for a humane and effective self-chosen end". I very calmly and logically state my position and I repeat as many times as necessary that I can't just die and that's the whole problem. This is important so that they don't call the cops. It also ties into the next part: "safety".
These people use the word "safety" and talk about "keeping you safe" and "working on a safety plan" a whole fuck of a lot. It's important to not let them get away with this abuse of the language. Again, I don't get viscerally angry, but sarcasm can be used here. When they ask if I'm safe, my answer is usually "no one is safe as long as the mental health act is in effect". They get a bit confused and try to rephrase the question. "Would you like to work on a safety plan"? Now, I do this a lot, so I've had multiple answers for this. "That sounds a whole lot like participating in my own slavery, so no thank you." Or "oh, there's no need. My 'safety' is already locked in. That's the crisis I'm calling with. I'm totally 'safe'." Using sarcasm when using the word 'safe' is really important.
What else is really important is informing these altruistic dumbells is the difference between facts, feelings and opinions. Any fact they don't like, they try to reframe as an opinion or a feeling. I don't let them do that. Not without a fight.
Finally, I break down how suicide prevention constitutes slavery. If a person owns a thing, they can destroy that thing for whatever reason they see fit or for no reason at all. Since the state is relieving me of the ability to destroy myself, they take on the burden of owning my life, rendering me state property. Then I tell them to give themselves a pat on the back for all the good work they do.
They'll remind me that no one is making me call them. Then I'll remind them that whether I called them or not, forcible suicide prevention would still be in effect. They'll assure me that they would only call the cops as a last resort. Then I'll assure them that such a thing still constitutes the use of force. They try to deny this because they see themselves as people who value consent. Thing is, if you can't consent to death on your own terms, then your whole life is in violation of your consent, so every single thing you do is done without your consent.
They usually don't appreciate the conversation.
