Martin Manley's bequest: reconsider the stigma of suicide
The man who blogged about his suicide invited us to engage in a rational debate about how we all face end-of-life decisions
Email
An elegy written in a country churchyard. Photograph: Alamy
A few weeks ago, this was published on a blog, which was soon widely shared:
On his extensive, occasionally strange blog, Manley attempted to detail his decision. He claimed to have no mental health, financial or other significant issues that typically lead to suicide.
Recently, National Public Radio's Scott Simon described his mother's last days, live-tweeting to his 1.2 million followers, as he held her hand and spoke to her in her final hours. Many were moved, but others were disturbed. One, Jeni Marinucci, wrote:
In 2010, a Japanese man livestreamed his suicide, to cheering and protestations from an online chat forum. That same year, a Swedish man staged his own death during a live broadcast. Unlike Manley, however, neither of these people publicised their reasons explicitly, despite the shockingly live-broadcast manner of their deaths.
Manley's blog challenges perceptions of suicide on many levels. Importantly, it's not encouragement or incitement. As he wrote:
People don't merely want biological life, after all, they want quality life. Who wants to continue living if it means endless, incurable suffering and debilitation? Perhaps a few do, but why should their standard be applied to all?
As research indicates, by reducing social stigma, more effort can go into suicide prevention, not least because we're more likely to donate to a cause if we are not repulsed by the subject. People won't feel ashamed for having suicidal thoughts when they're treated as people, instead of pariahs. This could translate into lives saved.
Furthermore, some countries and certain American states have recognised assisted suicide as a medical option. Certain conditions must be met, of course: an incurable disease, the full consent of a "capable" patient, and other carefully circumscribed parameters. Against those who cry that legalised euthanasia will lead to abuse, murder and so on, there are years of evidence to the contrary, as io9 contributor George Dvorsky points out.
There is plenty of empirical evidence for saying that suicide is a good indicator of mental health problems, but that should be different from arguing that suicide is, by definition, a sign of insanity. Manley claims to have suffered no mental health problems. We only have his word for that, but Manley's decision, read charitably, should not be interpreted automatically as a sign of undiagnosed depression, but should be compared with the cultural exception we largely grant to those who choose legalised euthanasia.
We should be able to discuss whether there are important distinctions between someone who feels him or herself to be in the final phase of life, prior to inevitable debilitation, and a cancer patient in her final days who is allowed a clinical assisted suicide? In both cases, the individual is making an informed decision, autonomously, prior to pain and the loss of capacity.
To help undermine stigma, we should recognise that many of us already do rationally contemplate our ends when we prepare wills, "do not resuscitate" orders, organ donation instructions, funeral options and so on. We acknowledge life in full bloom and the possibility of its sudden end or inevitable gradual waning.
Talking about the end of life, in this age in which we're all public figures, should be a chance to celebrate life – rather than pour scorn on a decision that may be rational and moral. If people are sharing more, it's an opportunity to reach back – not to dismiss out of hand.
If there's anything Martin Manley bequeaths us, let it be the undermining of stigma, not its perpetuation.
Today is August 15, 2013. Today is my 60th birthday. Today is the last day of my life. Today, I committed suicide. Today, is the first day this site is active.These are US sports analyst Martin Manley's final words on the digital tombstone that is his site, a kind of "necroblog" now hosted by the hacker group Anonymous. On that same day, it can be estimated that between 100 and 150 other Americans (pdf) committed suicide. But Manley was the only one who authored a blog about it.
On his extensive, occasionally strange blog, Manley attempted to detail his decision. He claimed to have no mental health, financial or other significant issues that typically lead to suicide.
The major reasons adults commit suicide – health, legal, financial … none of those issues are relevant to me and, for the most part of my life, have never been.The age of the privately-read suicide letter seems to be over, just as we've also done away with the personal diary. We all blog, like, tweet and Instagram our lives. One question Manley's action provokes is why, given our digitally-documented lives, does it seem so strange that we might do the same for our deaths?
Recently, National Public Radio's Scott Simon described his mother's last days, live-tweeting to his 1.2 million followers, as he held her hand and spoke to her in her final hours. Many were moved, but others were disturbed. One, Jeni Marinucci, wrote:
It's just such a private moment that deserves to be something more than a blip on a stranger's computer screen and I don't know if Twitter can offer that dignity.But the rules of privacy have changed. Just ask anyone who's lost a job thanks to that controversial Facebook post. Further, cyber-sharing of death is neither a strictly American phenomenon, nor is it entirely new.
In 2010, a Japanese man livestreamed his suicide, to cheering and protestations from an online chat forum. That same year, a Swedish man staged his own death during a live broadcast. Unlike Manley, however, neither of these people publicised their reasons explicitly, despite the shockingly live-broadcast manner of their deaths.
Manley's blog challenges perceptions of suicide on many levels. Importantly, it's not encouragement or incitement. As he wrote:
I do not advocate anyone take the same way out that I took.The only "encouragement" we should take from Manley is to do away with stigma and taboo about death. By being more open about what leads people to suicide, by not treating suicidal thoughts as automatic signs of insanity, we might actually reduce the number of suicides.
People don't merely want biological life, after all, they want quality life. Who wants to continue living if it means endless, incurable suffering and debilitation? Perhaps a few do, but why should their standard be applied to all?
As research indicates, by reducing social stigma, more effort can go into suicide prevention, not least because we're more likely to donate to a cause if we are not repulsed by the subject. People won't feel ashamed for having suicidal thoughts when they're treated as people, instead of pariahs. This could translate into lives saved.
Furthermore, some countries and certain American states have recognised assisted suicide as a medical option. Certain conditions must be met, of course: an incurable disease, the full consent of a "capable" patient, and other carefully circumscribed parameters. Against those who cry that legalised euthanasia will lead to abuse, murder and so on, there are years of evidence to the contrary, as io9 contributor George Dvorsky points out.
There is plenty of empirical evidence for saying that suicide is a good indicator of mental health problems, but that should be different from arguing that suicide is, by definition, a sign of insanity. Manley claims to have suffered no mental health problems. We only have his word for that, but Manley's decision, read charitably, should not be interpreted automatically as a sign of undiagnosed depression, but should be compared with the cultural exception we largely grant to those who choose legalised euthanasia.
We should be able to discuss whether there are important distinctions between someone who feels him or herself to be in the final phase of life, prior to inevitable debilitation, and a cancer patient in her final days who is allowed a clinical assisted suicide? In both cases, the individual is making an informed decision, autonomously, prior to pain and the loss of capacity.
To help undermine stigma, we should recognise that many of us already do rationally contemplate our ends when we prepare wills, "do not resuscitate" orders, organ donation instructions, funeral options and so on. We acknowledge life in full bloom and the possibility of its sudden end or inevitable gradual waning.
Talking about the end of life, in this age in which we're all public figures, should be a chance to celebrate life – rather than pour scorn on a decision that may be rational and moral. If people are sharing more, it's an opportunity to reach back – not to dismiss out of hand.
If there's anything Martin Manley bequeaths us, let it be the undermining of stigma, not its perpetuation.
No comments:
Post a Comment