[Article] Why CTB danger/risk assessment is mostly a punitive, paternalistic measure

[TAW122]

Similar to other threads I wrote about danger and risk as well as the psychiatric system and 'benevolent paternalism', this thread breaks down what really happens in the real world when those who are suspected of planning to CTB, having CTB ideation, or even those who attempt (and fail) to CTB face. Many of us in the community have heard about the terms 'risk assessment', 'threat assessment', 'danger to self (assessment)' or any similar jargon when it comes to the CTB preventionists and similar crowd. However, this thread will elaborate and explain why such measures taken by MHPs and society at large are nothing more than just punitive, (benevolent) paternalistic measures against people they don't like or find offensive. Before I proceed though, there are two points that I will address.

The two points I will address related to this topic (in order to prevent confusion as well as setting the tone and for clarity purposes) are that:
1) These measures prevent the impulsive CTBs! Yes, while there are people (usually those who are not age of majority or those who just act impulsively) who are saved, again, this thread is referring to the people who are determined and made up their minds when it comes to CTB, not out of irrationality or impulsivity.
2) There are people who use it as a weapon, to manipulate, threaten, or get attention. I will say that those people who do so to manipulate others are wrong and I do NOT endorse nor condone such behaviors. However, that point is for another thread and most people (including many pro-choicers) will agree that manipulative behavior by using CTB as a threat, to pressure or manipulate, or just to get attention are scummy.

(Keep in mind this thread is NOT about those two points that I've just addressed, but something entirely different.)

Now that those points have been addressed, here is a breakdown of the main topic "Why CTB risk/danger assessment is mostly a punitive, paternalistic measure against people who are willfully and knowingly wanting to CTB. There are many people who claim that CTB prevention and such saved them and are grateful to be alive, but I am not referring to those people. Usually when MHP (mental health professionals) or those who are inquisitive or moralistic busybodies take these measures it's [usually] not about saving the person even if they use that reasoning or as a facade for such, but due to probable cause or reason to believe that said person may be thinking about CTB (ideation), planning CTB (acquiring methods, means, researching, etc), or even attempting soon (usually within hours, days, weeks, etc.). As we know, the society we live in present day is a prohibitive one when it comes to the right to die, voluntary euthanasia, death, and similar topics. As even EG (existentialgoof) in many of his posts and responses on Reddit point out, his main argument is that "people are more offended at the idea of people opting out [of life], rather than the welfare of the person (ending the person's suffering or solving the issues that cause said suffering to begin with.)" which makes a lot of sense.

In another thread titled "We live in a paternalistic, punitive society when it comes to CTB and RTD", I took a more general approach on the topic, but this one is more specifically narrow in focus on "risk assessment and threat assessment". While most proponents claim it is done for the safety of others and in the best interests (which is not in the best interests of all, obviously), the reality is that it is done to uphold the status quo and also punish those who violate it (despite it not being illegal, but de facto is). It is akin to blasphemy or some sort of societal sin to be either planning to CTB, thinking about CTB, or even potentially attempting (but failing) to CTB, and those who are caught or failed before they could execute their plan are punished for it. They are punished through detainment, humiliation, and a slew of other social and civil consequences.

On another point, for those who actually serious about CTB and such are not likely going to reveal their intentions or plans (for obvious reasons), therefore making CTB risk and danger assessment completely moot. This also further proves my point that it is done to placate and appease the masses' ego, beliefs, and values, even at the cost of the individual's autonomy freedom, dignity, and well-being. It's about punishing (even if they don't see it as such) those who go against the idea, or violate this kind of value and tenet that society has regarding life and sentience.

So in the end, whenever one encounters the question, assessment, or any inquisitive probing into one's risk or would be CTB, it's really just a trap because it's there not primarily to save the person (though pro-lifers and prohibitionists, preventionists would like to frame it as such), but rather to uphold the status quo and punish those who violate that tenet (aka pose a threat to themselves or would be attempting the forbidden act of CTB). It is thus akin to that of blasphemy laws. While there are people saved, that really is more of a secondary, perhaps even tertiary function of such assessments and probes. The primary purpose really is a punitive, authoritarian measure manufactured as an act of benevolent paternalism, especially for those who really, truly (made up their minds and are unwavering in resolve to) want to CTB and end one's suffering.

 

[LaVieEnRose]

But what if it's not?

I'm going to think of people as wildflowers from now on, each their own, rare and beautiful. Ever been in a nature preserve and seen those signs, "do no pick the flowers"? Well, if we are the flowers, then no-one should pick us (murder!), and so logic would follow that neither should we pluck our own stems (suicide). Benevolence was there so that the flowers could thrive and be where they belong, the preservation of them being law, and perhaps rightfully so. The law holds authority, this doesn't necessarily mean it is punitive.

You can't value someone's life more than they do.

As someone who has been subject to what was described in the OP, I can tell you that my (and people's) well-being was not actually high on the list of priorities.

 

[claracatchingthebus]

But what if it's not?

I'm going to think of people as wildflowers from now on, each their own, rare and beautiful. Ever been in a nature preserve and seen those signs, "do no pick the flowers"? Well, if we are the flowers, then no-one should pick us (murder!), and so logic would follow that neither should we pluck our own stems (suicide). Benevolence was there so that the flowers could thrive and be where they belong, the preservation of them being law, and perhaps rightfully so. The law holds authority, this doesn't necessarily mean it is punitive.

i'm sorry you lost someone to suicide, but we've all heard the quasi-new-age mental health platitudes before. We're all unique snowflakes, perfect, because your religious deity says so.

you want us to suffer because of your religion. i honestly hope you and other pro-lifers get banned.

 

[TAW122]

@LaVieEnRose I'm sorry you went through the system and such. While I've managed to never get entangled in such, I had situations where I was or could easily have been. Fortunately, I haven't been because I would likely have been in a worse situation and today's outcome would be different (worse) off than that. I agree with your sentiments that in this world, the dissent against the sanctity of life results in a punitive response by the people in charge and those (peers) around us.

@claracatchingthebus Thanks for standing up to the annoying pro-life spiel that is posted.

 

[claracatchingthebus]

@claracatchingthebus Thanks for standing up to the annoying pro-life spiel that is posted.

It's just so frustrating because EVERYWHERE except here if you say you are suicidal you are inundated with the usual corporate/government/religious platitudes ("prioritize mental health/talk to a professional/pray it away") and all the platitudes ALWAYS lead to one thing: being locked up and drugged against your will in a horrible degrading place with lying being the only way to get out ("oh yes, the Benztroplhexphanate is soooooo helpful, I feel so much better and don't mind the shaking at all").

And because the government and society and the mental health industry and religion have ALL limited suicide discussion to be "you must tell us your plans and when we think they are bad enough we'll drug you," the last thing anyone here wants to hear is illogical quasi-religious new age bullshit.

If that poster wants to discuss metaphores about not picking flowers with people like use, they should make it so society does not handle suicidal people with "you must talk to a professional ---> you must be on these drugs that barely work." The conversation with these pro-lifer types ends when they use drugs and forced imprisonment to try to control us. You want to force people on drugs and into locked facilities? Fine, but then leave us all the fuck alone. Someone like that is the last sort of person I would want to encounter here.