# It's my body, I can cut if I want to.

Category: Let's talk

## Post 1 by Nem (I just keep on posting!) on Wednesday, 25-Jan-2006 17:32:10

At what point should another person or government step in to keep you from doing harm to yourself? We think of things like drugs or the defacement of your own body as wrong and dangerous to your person. The government tries to stop you from doing such things, this includes suicide. There are other things that are just as dangerous, sky diving, deep sea diving, rock climbing without ropes, nascar driving, and the list goes on and on. At what point should the government step in to infringe on your personal liberties?

## Post 2 by Perestroika (Her Swissness) on Wednesday, 25-Jan-2006 17:42:44

It depends on weather the person is a minor or not. I believe it is very important for a government to step in if a child is doing harm to themselves, because this generally points to something wrong with their home life. Suicidal behaviour and withdrawn and quiet tendancies are often signs of abuse or trauma, and should at all times be taken seriously.
However, the issue here is that self harm and suicidal tendancies are contagious. especially among young girls. If they see one girl getting attention by cutting herself, they think it's a good way of getting fussed over as well. This makes telling the difference between the genuine and the attention seeking very difficult.
However, i don't think it should stop a government from intervening.
What you do after you become of age however, is, and should remain your own choice, as long as you are not endangering the lives of others.

## Post 3 by Nem (I just keep on posting!) on Wednesday, 25-Jan-2006 19:32:31

Does psychological trama play a part in endangering others? Consider the people who know what it is that your doing. Or the familys of the ones who are doing what ever it is that is being done. When we elected the goverment did we give them parental rights over the people that they govern?

## Post 4 by lights_rage (I just keep on posting!) on Wednesday, 25-Jan-2006 23:06:15

hmm, I dont know

## Post 5 by Daenerys Targaryen (Enjoying Life) on Thursday, 26-Jan-2006 16:27:52

If you want to cut or self-harm, that should be your own choice cos people can tell you to stop, but unless you yourself want to stop, you won't.

## Post 6 by Senior (I've now got the bronze prolific poster award! now going for the silver award!) on Thursday, 26-Jan-2006 17:17:28

I think that all people who deliberately harm themselves, should be indefinitely banned from childcare if they're over the age of 16 because most people can think straight when they reach that age or at least they should be able to. The government shouldn't do anything about them, but if their treatment of theirselves affects their work, then employers should be able to put them on some kind of black list. If they're under 16, they should be sent to compulsary psychiatric treatment, if they're over 16, then it should be optional. Also, if they use their actions towards themselves to get attention, then they should be punnished for emmotional abuse which should be illegal.

## Post 7 by Perestroika (Her Swissness) on Thursday, 26-Jan-2006 17:49:59

hmmmmm, genuine cases of self harm and suicide are doing it to escape from something that they just can't bring themselves to tell another human being, also some of these young people have mental illnesses that are overlooked because their parents don't want to, or are not able to point out and deal with in the correct manner.
I do however think that people who commit suicide in a public place are selfish and often don't think about the harm they cause to others. Think of those who jump in front of trains or off bridges onto highways. And then think of the drivers and passengers they affect.
I think that mental health needs to be taken into consideration more often but i also think that medication should be used less and counciling employed more often. I don't think it should be optional at the age of 16 because this is one of the most difficult times for teenagers and it is when intervention is most necessary.
I also think there is a good chance that young men comitt suicide because they have been trained in many cases that showing emotions is unmanly and that they should keep things hidden away inside. Traditionally, boys are raised to go to war, and there fore must be treated as such. this is the mentality a lot of fathers employ to teach their children how to be a "man"
I think methods such as counciling and group therapy could be useful to adress this issue.

## Post 8 by KC8PNL (The best criticism of the bad is the practice of the better.) on Friday, 27-Jan-2006 0:36:36

I would say that theropy should be a requirement at least until the age of 18 if someone is found attempting suicide. Many youths, even those that are 16 and 17, especially those ages actually, have a lot of issues related to self development, confusion about themselves, etc. This can drive a person crazy, but it is something that theropy can often times help. Although I'm not a big fan of drugging up everybody, I think that drug theropy should be used if talking issues out doesn't help. However, once u reach a certain age, I don't think anything should be required of u, with the exception of if u have kids that they should be placed with other relatives, as sort of already suggested by WW. Here's an add on to this topic: what do u all think about assisted suicide? I think it should be legal, provided the person who wants to kill themselves wants to do so. I mean, if u need someone's help to do this, I don't think this person should be charged with any crime. In some cases, it may be better for a person to die, especially if this is what he/she wants.

## Post 9 by Perestroika (Her Swissness) on Friday, 27-Jan-2006 6:11:34

I think this is a very difficult issue to adress. To look at an example, The Northern territory introduced euthanasia in the latter part of the 1990's. This caused a lot of argueing in both houses of parliament as to weather or not this was morally correct and weather it could be said to be assisted suicide. In the end, the state was forced into dropping this new practice by the government.
There are a number of points for, and against assisted suicide.
For example, suicide can be looked upon as a less painless demise for those who are suffering incurable diseases and afflictions.
For these people, dieing before the pain becomes too severe and before they become a major burdon on their families can view suicide as the better alternative.
However, how can we be absolutely certain that that is what a person wants. what's to stop a greedy family member or friend from trying to abuse this system to easily despose of someone who is a burdon or a difficulty to them?
Like many other systems in the world, it's not fool proof, and since it deals with the very lives of other individuals, I don't think it should be even considered.
I also agree with the previous post in regards to the removal of any children who have parents who have issues that they have no desire to resolve, however, i'd like to see this extended to parents who have drug or alcohol issues. This is not to say that they couldn't ever get those children back, just that they should prove themselves worthy of having them in the first place.
This would save a lot of teenagers having to deal with their own mental issues in the first place.
I never said that medication shouldn't be used, but that it should be used as a last resort, or as part of a bigger skeem of treatment. there are way too many doctors who perscribe medication instead of dealing with the underlying issues, this often the reason for so many people having to be rehospitalised for mental health problems.

## Post 10 by Senior (I've now got the bronze prolific poster award! now going for the silver award!) on Friday, 27-Jan-2006 10:08:23

While all of this is true, I think that some peole in developed Westernise societies see suicide and self-harming as an easy option. People in poorer nations have lives so much harder than them, and it may be a good idea if there's no reason why they should be behaving in such a way to send them to some developing country and have them replaced. I think some people are too spoilt, to an extent whereby they feel that if they weigh slightly too much, they've got to do harm to themselves for example. This is simply caused by them taking their position in the world for granted, I can't imagine that this would occur in the poorest areas of the world where people work so many hours a day.

## Post 11 by Perestroika (Her Swissness) on Friday, 27-Jan-2006 10:41:47

WW, you're correct, and i would take a guess as to why this is the case. the teenagers of the western world don't have as much work and labour taking up their time. many of them spend their days in front of the tv, playing video games or spending time with friends who may be going through the same stuff as them.I just think it's a matter of, both cultural difference and also the fact that teenagers in third world countries simply don't have the time left in their days to think of such things, or, at least, have the ability to be thankful for what they have.

## Post 12 by Goblin (I have proven to myself and the world that I need mental help) on Wednesday, 01-Feb-2006 9:43:08

As someone who has attempted suicide twice and I was dealy serious.I think intervention should begin as soon as possible, after the event, leading to the individual trying self harming andor/ considering and/or attempting suicide.Unfortunately as I know to my cost, often the individual has to actually cut or swallow a bottle of pills and 1/2 a litre of vodka, before any action is taken and long before then, the damage is done.

## Post 13 by Goblin (I have proven to myself and the world that I need mental help) on Wednesday, 01-Feb-2006 9:51:38

As someone who has attempted suicide twice and I was dealy serious.I think intervention should begin as soon as possible, after the event, leading to the individual trying self harming andor/ considering and/or attempting suicide.Unfortunately as I know to my cost, often the individual has to actually cut or swallow a bottle of pills and 1/2 a litre of vodka, before any action is taken and long before then, the damage is done.

## Post 14 by The SHU interpreter (I just keep on posting!) on Saturday, 04-Feb-2006 18:15:07

i think that the government is responsible for children under the age of 18. i also think that they should take action if a teen is considering soicide for escaping problems. if that is the case, then parents sshould immediately get help right away. the symptoms include, giving away special possesions, writing suicidal leters, tell int ther parents that they would be somewhere else in heaven, saying, i wanto to die or i wish i could be dead all the time, etc. if the person is a legal adult comsidering a person of 18 years or older, its there own responsibility because at this point, they should be mature and think straight and be able to make decissions for themselves.

## Post 15 by The SHU interpreter (I just keep on posting!) on Wednesday, 06-Dec-2006 21:12:33

and i also think that people over the age of 16 should be also sent to psychiatric treatment. till they reach 18 because under that age, they are still minors, even if they can think straight. Most kids who are 17 and younger are not mature enough to make critical decisions in life. that takes time and a lot of experiences to learn from. Trial and error is the point here in order to learn and grow!