It's time to address the BBC...

[Rhizomorph1]

All I know is there's a cohort who would be dead without the site, and another that are dead because of its influence.

This is probably true but I'm sure the cohort that is dead is substantially greater than the non-dead cohort, supporting the dominant narrative that, yes, this website does facilitate ending lives. Most people aren't signing up to get support and you need only look at the numbers of posts in the suicide vs recovery discussion to illustrate the major disparity.

I support the values/mission of the site, but I think if we're to keep our ethics consistent we need a way of integrating this fact and I don't see a lot of that transparency I suppose.

It's tricky because as it stands in the dominant culture of suicide prohibition the only people who will be attracted to this site, including those moderating it, will be suicidal people. The slough of mental illness and vested personal interests in the agenda of the site will inevitably impair judgment. Meanwhile, the ethics of voluntary OR medical assistance in dying are taken for granted by the majority of non-suicidal people, so there's really scant opportunity for adequate moderation, person-centered, and importantly neutral communication regarding this topic.

I get why the medical system is generally anti-suicide. But, I do wish there were authorized compassion clubs/bottom-up NGOs that could facilitate dying for people who have demonstrated determination (motivation/intent) and sufficient consultation (informed/active decision making). I think there are a group of people who are chronically unwell who won't meet criteria for MAID for obvious reasons, but will still be intent on dying, and I don't think those people should be forced to die a potentially violent, painful, lonely, or undignified death.

An organization of the sort would need to demonstrate ample training and competencies to ensure they use person-centered, nonjudgmental and use neutral language. To ensure clients are well-informed on their options in living, and are not encouraged, implicitly or explicitly, to ctb, yet are respected and accepted for their decision to do so if they feel compelled. I don't see that level of skillful practice being employed effectively on here, but it is better than nothing

I doubt we will ever see an age where competent and compassionate dying clubs exist... The public has an evolution-programmed drive to oppose suicide and suicidal people are disenfranchised and just want to die so most of the competent politics will get lost somewhere in between.

The works by Dr. Philip Nitschke (author of PPH), Thomas Szasz, and Derek Humphrey are a great start but still generally only skim the surface in favour of MAID and VAD for elderly/terminally ill (as it's a difficult enough conversation as it is).

 

[Disappointered]

It's ridiculous that a representative of this site should even have to go to the trouble of putting together a response to counter this kind of sensationalistic propaganda. Luckily for suicidals, they did the work and said what many of us were thinking better than we could have. Glad this forum exists.

 

[RainAndSadness]

I support this forum's existence on the principle of the right to self-determination, but there's a few discussion points you raised that I'm not sold on:

Bring it on.

- The notion that increasing exposure leads to more registration and thus (insinuated) it doesn't do anything to effectively combat suicide - As much as it is a bit ironic since it leads to more registrations, Mainstream exposure is a necessary prerequisite for legislation that would restrict access to websites like these and lethal drugs like SN. It's just the practical nature of social change; people have to be able to name something before they can enact social change towards it. Social advocates are playing the long-game and that means raising enough awareness that people will bring it to policymakers for change. Otherwise it gets shoved in the file drawer. So short term it may increase activity on this site, but long term it is the only way they can advocate action against this site, pragmatically speaking

Okay, then demonstrate to me that taking down this forum will decrease the suicide rate. Like, that's the goal, right, that's how they justify giving this forum exposure - exposure to minors and exposure to people who didn't look for this forum in the first place. I made pretty clear in the past that I believe this forum shouldn't have such a high exposure, I preferred when people had to do some basic research before finding this forum but that changed ever since Tantacrul made that Youtube video and every moderator can confirm right now that processing the registration log is probably the most exhausting duty in the forum because that number has exploded.

- The idea that it won't reduce the number of suicides - Research has proven without a doubt that restricting access to (including information on access) more lethal means of suicide does reduce the number of successful suicides and increases the number of life years lived. It may be marginal (what percentage of people who completed suicide have increased access to lethal means due to this thread?), but it is still considerable enough for law makers to want to regulate.

Well, you fell for the same trap that most news outlets fell for who talked about this issue in the past. You're talking about suicicide prevention - addressing the symptoms of someone's suffering when the goal should be to improve people's lives - addressing the cause for suicide. Explain to me, how does taking away someone's SN improve their quality of life? How does it make anyone feel better? That's why I've said, the current "suicide prevention" approach is meaningless and shallow because it's focusing solely on preventing suicide and not improving anyone's lives. Preventing suicide doesn't mean there are less miserable people on the planet. You can post the hotline a billion times and you can take away my SN all day, how does that address the fact that a trans person who suffers from gender dysphoria actually needs real life social support, legal protection and recognition and medical coverage of life-saving surgeries and other medical procedures? Here you have me pointing to expensive but effective means to reduce suffering of UK citizen yet nobody is doing that because nobody cares about improving people's lives. It's simply not convenient to use tax payer money to fund trans-affirming care and medical intervention and I use that example because I'm trans and I know so many trans people from the UK who are let down by their own goverment - and on top of that, trans people make up a large minority in this forum, see here. Just to make clear what I'm talking about - the NHS stopped puberty blockers for trans youth despite the overhelming scientific evidence for the benefits of the mental well-being for anyone who is trans. All major political parties dropped any plans to introduce self-ID laws, which would make transition a lot easier for trans people. And on top of that, the population isn't really that supportive of trans-affirming procedures either. Impressive, that's their approach to "suicide prevention" when the anti-puberty blocker policy might lead to more suicides. Instead, a huge part of the ruling class wants to die on the hill that a woman is someone who has a vagina - just so they can keep calling trans-women men... Wow. Amazing, these are the important questions.

Maybe there are more important issues to focus on than an online forum with 40'000 members.

I'm not saying I approve of these restrictions or the BBC's claims in any capacity, but only that we can't deny that coverage like this does reduce the activity of forums like these, access to certain means of suicide, and by virtue, reduces the number of suicide deaths, even if only incrementally. The fact that you are being framed as a bad guy, an incel, and various other false claims is not only dishonest but probably fails to tackle the issue... Even if one were to assume a pro-life rhetoric, it only serves to create more problems by being dishonest. The facts are always friendly and the fact is that you are running this website with good intentions.

Again, reducing the suicide numbers shouldn't be your goal if it means you maintain the same amount of miserable people in your society. The goal is to decrease the numbers of miserable people - and to do that you need to tackle the causes and roots of people's suffering, taking away someone's means to commit suicide does not make their life better in any way. It only ensures they will be unable to find relief from pain in a society that doesn't allow for assisted suicide and that's another point. You don't get to invade people's individual autonomy and take away their means to exercise deeply personal decisions and decide for them if they're allowed to die - when you don't even have basic assisted suicide in your country. Sorry but that doesn't add up. The reason why people have to find other means to exercise their right to die, including SN, is because the ruling class doesn't want to hear anything about assisted suicide, countless political discussions over the past few years have confirmed that. And why is that? Oh because suicidal people are vulnerable per definition so they can't make rational decisions regarding their own welfare and so on - yeah, the ususal nonsense.

It's all the moral attacks and defenses from both sides that seem perplexing to me. Suicide is morally neutral and I believe this forum attempts to be neutral to the extent it can; offering people the option to pick life or death and communicating a person-centered respect and acceptance of whatever decision the person wishes. However, the admin/mods' values, ethics, and logos probably do not align perfectly with what members (who are largely depressed, grieving, angry, etc.) do. The forum is neutral, but the way it is used by members is far from neutral and certainly encourages suicide, even if only implicitly.

I am depressed myself, what are you talking about? I was suicidal for the first time in my life when I was 14 years old. That's why I'm an outspoken activist for the right to die and that's why I have a problem with how society is handling these questions. Because I know first-hand how inefficient we are at tackling the problems, very obvious problems by the way and they would be even more obvious if you just listened to us and read some posts in this forum of people describing "hey, that's why I'm suicidal". So many years later, nothing has changed.
And again, this forum doesn't encourage suicide "implicitly" either, I don't know where that comes from - please demonstrate to me how it does. It seems to me that you think being pro-choice and encouraging suicide are somehow connected with each other? That's seems to be the logical conclusion to your claim at least.

Again, please understand I support this forum 100%. I'm very thankful for the resources it has provided me. But I do believe in being honest/realistic about what this forum represents, it's cultural influence which does have the ability to increase the number of suicide deaths, and the means through which legal restrictions gain traction.

I demonstrated back in 2022 (and a follow-up one year later) as a response to the NYT article that this forum does not increase suicide, it merely impacts how people commit suicide. If you make a claim like this, please follow up with some evidence, otherwise you're not any better than the fixers who just the claim we increase the suicide rate without providing any evidence for said claim - like that person who made the petition to take us down with "immediate action".

I think the deeper argument to be had is not around whether it facilitates death or not (it does), but around deeper philosophical questions around the right to die, the right to self-determination, etc. and around the importance for suicidal people to have non-judgmental, person-centered spaces where they can talk about suicide so that they aren't ostracized, and can make informed decisions and die a dignified death if they choose to.

And do you think one single news outlet contributed to that discussion in the last 4 years when they just frame us as pro-suicide? When they harass the founders, when they try to dox me, when they claim we're all just a cult, when the people who use this forum are merely victims? Do you think any of these positions bring us closer to an actual conclusion to that discussion or do you think listening to suicidal people, members of this community, would achieve that? If so, then why is nobody doing it, why are you pointing the finger at me when you should point the finger at all the journalists who threw this community under the bus for being mere victims and pawns of a suicide cult, essentially triviliazing the opinion of every single member here?

Having these spaces in my opinion could facilitate a safety net to ensure people have adequately considered suicide so they don't do so hastily, while allowing people who are certain to more effectively plan for dying while doing so more comfortably.

I think the people who oppose this forum made pretty clear there should be no space that allows for any discussion about suicide from a pro-choice perspective. We(!!) are the compromise you want to see. It's us, there is nobody else who fights for the rights of those who want to exercise their right to die (peacefully) and for those who want to discuss their struggles from a pro-choice perspective. And I hate to say it, we're experiencing so much pressure from all sides, you don't really have the luxury to play both sides here. Either you agree with the ones who want to take us down or you don't. Like did I miss something? Are there people out there who have criticised us without calling for the shutdown of our forum? No, that "middle ground" you're looking for doesn't exist because we are the middle ground. We are vehemently pro-choice and I will demonstrate that in a thread very soon.

Sorry if I'm a bit harsh with you but I just don't think your criticism is very fair given the situation we're in right now.

 

[gbi2]

It's actually pretty sick minded to keep people living when they are so deeply unhappy they want to go.

It is endemic in the UK for organisations and even most individuals to act based on what happened, instead of the reasons why it did. This is why there are never solutions, but just new sets of rules and moving of goalposts.

 

[Life Is My Coffin]

they open their article with this sentence, stating they don't name the forum

I swear to god Sanctioned Suicide is like Candyman or Voldemort to these fucking journo retards. Their logic is simple: you utter its name, more will die instantly.

 

[Meditation guide]

I understand the BBC was once a great, respected organization but has had some difficulties in recent years.
It's possible that sensationalizing this site is seen as a way to stir up attention by beating the drum of moral righteousness and indignation supposedly.

If the BBC took a poll of their readers that asked if they thought they should be allowed to request physician assisted suicide for help to end their lives peacefully if they wanted to for reasons of ending suffering, I can guess what the results would be. When these polls are taken in other countries there's a large majority choosing to have the right to request a peaceful death, if and when they feel the time has come for them to end their suffering.

If the BBC really wanted to garner renewed respect among UK citizens, they would simply take such a poll of their readers, and publish the results.

 

[HouseofMortok]

You will have nothing and be happy.

 

[Kundalini Guy]

Am NGL I feel sorry for that guy who got auto banned. his story is damn sad :(

 

[blue_muse]

I can't understand the attempted clampdown on SS; by a corporation that brought attention to this site, through the documentary on Callie Lewis, in the first place.

 

[0000000000000]

They do not want to interview any member of the forum because for some of them we are condescendingly seen as irrational teenagers with an altered mental state who must be "saved" at all costs from themselves. Whatever we say, these kinds of people will try to invalidate it with the classic excuse that wanting to commit suicide is only the product of a sick and irrational mind.

 

[blue_muse]

They do not want to interview any member of the forum because for some of them we are condescendingly seen as irrational teenagers with an altered mental state who must be saved at all costs from themselves.

Anything we say will be seen as the product of a sick and irrational mind, nothing more.

100%. The shock, the horror that the BBC may interview people with logical reasons behind their suicidality. Can't have balanced reporting now, can we.

 

[tiger b]

It's reminding me a bit of the IRA/SF coverage in the 1980s where actors had to say what the 'politicians' said.

Many, including myself, were disappointed when we could actually hear their real voices in the end!

BBC are being a bit silly, to put it very mildly. But it's not surprising. They're more about clickbait then ever before.