Venting Stupid "Psychology Today" article about the movie "Me Before You"

[TAW122]

This article/post written by a psychologist on "Psychology Today" is really infuriating to read. It seems like he knows and acknowledges that the fictional character in the movie suffered greatly due to the accident that crippled his quality of life. However, near the end of the article he invalidates the person's suffering by calling it irrational and that his depression made him (the character Will) unable to make the rational decision of death with dignity. He would rather Will just live in the state that he is currently and suffering through. Clearly, Psychology Today is a pro-life echo chamber of people who at best acknowledge suicide is as an option, but oftenly denounce it as an irrational choice. First off, he doesn't know the suffering that quadriplegics and/or other people with severe physical disabilities go through. If Will is considered irrational then everyone who has depression would never be rational enough to make decisions (which would also imply that criminals need not be punished because they were deemed 'depressed' and thus irrational to decide to commit such crimes!). Also, then (according to shitface Clyman) people who are suffering immensely don't get to die on their own terms because their ailments (cancer, ALS, or whatever else illness) makes them depressed. See how fucked up that logic is? This is why depression =/= irrationality and in fact, just because one is objectively realistic, it doesn't mean they are irrational, quite the opposite really. They are MORE rational than most of the brainless sheep in society. Depression alone should never be conflated with rationality/irrationality as there are environment (situational depression) vs clinical (in the mind), but that's another topic for another time.

Furthermore, while there are quadriplegics who decide to accept the challenges of life, it doesn't mean that all quadriplegics or those with serious disabilities will do the same, nor should they. It's their fucking prerogative to decide and NO ONE ELSE's. I would hate to have a pro-life shill of a psychologist to decide my fate (or anyone's for the matter). I can never accept this, fuck Psychology Today!

 

[Baskol1]

Exactly, hes probably quite healthy, so he does not know how it is to have a severe disability.

 

[Misanthrope]

Why do people not stay in burning buildings? What if your burning building is your body or mind or both? The question really is what have you done to try and put out that fire? How much of a burning building are you willing to live in? Can you enjoy a good book while your hand is in a fire? Can this fire even be put out in the first place? If no, then why would you stay in a burning building? Psychology is obligated to assume suicide is irrational as it is in the business of treating the irrational. Not exploring the rational reasons why a person chooses euthanasia or is forced to choose suicide if euthanasia is not an option. This is underscored by how little effort is made to study rational suicide. So you are left with an entirely one sided discussion by the apparent experts on all things mental health.

 

[Meretlein]

Their desire for control is so obvious. Life is neither harm free or cost free and no one should be forced to endure the continued harms and costs.

 

[Jumper]

"Because his quality of life did not dip sufficiently low"

Please. Such an infuriating statement.

 

[woxihuanni]

PT is a cesspit coloured by religion. They just tell you to be useful to other people, and slink away and find a yoga class when your needs are not met. Fuck them.

 

[AnnaJaspers]

This is infuriating but thanks for sharing.

I just looked up the author. He went to Yeshiva University which is a Jewish school so he is probably some kind of Orthodox pro-lifer.

 

[eve2004]

"Because his quality of life did not dip sufficiently low"

Please. Such an infuriating statement.

Mine just felt like it dipped lower knowing that a psychologist said that and mostly likely Psychology Today and many of their contributors endorses that point of view. I'm not saying everyone associated with PT agrees with the opinion but it is certainly like a slap in the face and was very discouraging to read this from someone in the mental health field (and that PT published it... WTF?). If any psychologists disagree with this article, they should speak up. But I doubt they will.