david f: <"War kills many who would rather live. Often war is caused by an inequitable distribution of resources. There are many other causes we might address. I think it more reasonable to concern ourselves with saving the lives of those who want to live rather than those who don't want to.">

I don't see why there has to be a choice between the two. I don't think caring comes in a definable quantity that will run out if we use too much of it.

There is no doubt that anyone who wants to exercise their sovereignty by destroying it is likely to succeed. They don't need our permission or encouragement or studied disinterest. One act of genuine concern seems to be enough to encourage most people to reconsider. Surely a life is worth that chance.

I reckon most of us on the up side of things have enough compassion and energy to spare to also care about people who die in needless wars and to try and prevent or at least reduce that as well.

This is appalling. Are there two Colin Tatzes, one compassionate and courageous and a lifelong fighter for Aboriginal rights, the other callous and impatient to write people off ?

I agree with Pynchme, that people (a) have, amongst their autonomous choices, many options besides suicide (z), and surely we have the obligation as fellow human-beings to encourage people in such dire states of mind to consider some of their many options between (a) and (z).

Aboriginal people have suicide rates five and ten times as high as those of other Australians (but not one of the 25,000 Indigenous university graduates, as far as I know, not one, so there's a long-term option) - I have known too many young Aboriginal people who have taken this option, bright kids who could have gone on to happy and successful lives, young women whose vile treatment and lack of community support has driven them to 'exercise their autonomy' out of sheer desperation that nobody cared, and worse, that their own 'community' devalued them so much that they might as well top themselves. Suicide is forever, and there are surely a multitude of better options:

Far more funding should be devoted to training appropriate counsellors, health workers, community workers, whatever, who can be in touch with suicide-prone communities and situations - with the long-term unemployed, with women and girls in highly exposed situations such as Aboriginal communities, with the homeless, with people experiencing financial stress such as farmers and small business people.

We surely can't just write people off on the pretext of 'autonomy', as if society was merely an amorphous heap of individuals all going their own way - if we are ever going to build a better society, surely we must try to look after each other, to care about each other at least enough to keep each other alive ? Is anybody ever happy when they suicide, or do they feel friendless, out of options in a heartless world ? What a ghastly way to exercise one's 'autonomy' for the last time. We all deserve better than that.

Jo

A wonderful article.

Those in the mental health industry would naturally be threatened by views such as this. The god complex, the neediness of having people depend on them, the need to 'care' (or be seen to) while conveniently feeding their own egos. I often wonder how those in the counselling professions navigate this elephant in the room, how they live in a state of denial about their ego feeding. The Big Pharma companies are actually more honest than most in all this, just trying to make a quid.

But, denial, that river in Egypt, stretches far further I suppose. The arrogance that one knows better, that the life of another is something that anyone can possibly have enough insight into to have a valid opinion one way or the other whether it is worth continuing (to that person).

Lets face it, with drugs and 'counselling', what we are really trying to achieve is conformity. Messing with genes will be next. Anyone see Gattaca? One day we will mourn the absence of the 'dysfunctional' in our society and the beauty they bring more than we currently mourn the legitimate choices of those of their number who choose suicide.

The mourning is just as selfish as the suicide.

The attitude: Your behaviour, outlook on life, is unsettling to me, so I must medicate you so I feel better. The world as I see it is more valid than the world as you see it. I know what's best for you and I can make you see the light. Hubris.

Choosing 'sanity' is made more convenient for those with an alternative frame of reference, but there are those in this world who I assume by their actions have more integrity.

'it is not we who are rejecting the individual suicide so much as the young suicide cohorts who are rejecting us - our love, family, faith, imagination, creativity, culture, civilisation. We are, in many senses, as much affronted as confronted by each such event. But this is essentially because we view the individual as belonging to us, to our society.'

Indeed.

No offence, Houellebecq (you're entitled to hold your death-favouring views), but surely we have obligations to encourage people to choose life over death, no strings, no dictation, not necessarily any recourse to medication, no attempt to impose how people should live, merely that they re-consider their options, that they keep choosing to live. Nobody wins when someone kills themselves.

Let the 'dysfunctional' flourish, by all means - the self-removal of the 'dysfunctional' in our midst leaves our whole society poorer. Death is no answer.

Joe

Dear Loudmouth,

We have no obligation to have people choose life over death. We have an obligation to accept people's choices.

Sometimes death is the best answer. We all are going to die. Why not choose the time?

Hi Joe,

'Death is no answer.'
Perhaps you are asking the wrong questions. Certainly one's questions are unique, and only relevant to oneself.

As Jules once said, 'If my answers frighten you then you should cease asking scary questions. '

>'the self-removal of the 'dysfunctional' in our midst leaves our whole society poorer.'

Yes it does, but it is selfish of our society to put it's needs over these individuals. Alteration whether by counselling or drugs of these wonderful people based on the fear they may reject us via suicide is throwing out the baby with the bathwater.

Not every person who enjoys melancholy, rejects family and stability, enjoys indulging bizarre rituals that you find disturbing, who doesn't converse with you on your terms and who rejects society's conventions feels that they don't desire to live any more. Certainly if they do it's not necessarily them that has a problem.

We lock some of them up 'for their own good', we attempt to change others with drugs and 'counselling', and we decide 'death is not the answer' for them. Who are we? What gives us the confidence our world view is superior, or that we know the first thing about the world they live in?

'we have obligations to encourage people to choose life over death, no strings, no dictation, not necessarily any recourse to medication, no attempt to impose how people should live, merely that they re-consider their options, that they keep choosing to live. '

I don't believe we have any obligation to do any such thing because to do so is either self serving or arrogant. Though if we reduced the goal to just encouraging people to re-consider (if asked), well that would be a step forward from what we have currently. It would also be a bitter blow to the counsellors and drug companies making a living off these people and pushing conformity.