Redditusername123123

Give people the respect of being able to decide for themselves. Safeguards are important for those who may be susceptible to pressure, be that from relatives or the state. Unless someone has a terminal diagnosis expected in the next six months, no government or healthcare organisation/staff should be allowed to offer or promote death. However, if someone without such prospects asks, then all reasonable alternatives should be offered to the person before death is a serious option. Once it is a serious option then an independent person should have the responsibility for ensuring it genuinely is the person's wish - and that that wish is reasonable. I don't think death is a reasonable response to mental health issues caused by present circumstances, that is a permanent solution to a temporary problem. I think managed death for intrinsic mental health reasons isn't a reasonable response until at least sixty years of age, that is plenty of time to explore all the options you are capable of engaging with.

Unfortunately, that is not the God of the Old Testament. In Abrahamic religions, worship and obedience trump everything. In Christianity, at least, there is the sense that any physical pain and indignity is valid to avoid a stain on the soul.

It's a really tough road and I see no reason not to allow those with terminal cancer to chose the time and manner of their death. When I was a kid, I watched someone slowly die of lung cancer. If it was me, I'd have very serious discussions with doctors on the odds of both survival and quality of life before agreeing to treatments such as chemo.

I went to many different MH peer support groups pre-covid. I only found 2 strong facilitators who would deal effectively with people disrupting groups. In hindsight, part of the problem was I didn't value my needs enough to make a stand. It sounds like the facilitators are fobbing you off. The trick with that is to stop assuming you share the same aims and stop looking for a consensual solution - it sounds like you have bottomed out that path. Don't argue when they say they have been told they cannot ban him, just keep repeating your point and make it clear that if there is no action to stop his behaviour negatively impacting others, you will send a written complaint to the national organisation. Important to be able to list specific incidents, plus a list of occasions you have complained. Important to have at least 2 others who you are sure will support you and sign a letter. Important at least one of those people is able to truthfully state they are Autistic to avoid being accused of discrimination. If the senior facilitator is a control freak, then you should be prepared for a lot of push back and potential retaliation. I get how stressful all of this could be. It's up to you to decide if it is worthwhile.

Thanks for your response. I agree historically women got the short end of the stick within a male dominated society. I think it was as late as the 1980s where the last descriminatory laws were removed in my country. I agree with the outdated bit, it really isn't unusual for people's political or cultural opinions of whatever stripe to be based on their own formative experiences instead of the world around them today. I look at my country today and I'm pleased to see significant female representation in every field, with the exceptions of construction, engineering, and some parts of IT. Yes, it will take a little while longer for more equivilent numbers at the very top of each field, but that is because it is only in recent decades that women became better represented at the lower and mid levels. I profoundly disagree with the concept I have heard this friend express that the next step is to make it the turn of women to dominate, or that women are inherently better suited to wield power. That is childish thinking propagated by extremists with an agenda. It is a vast improvement that all of society have the same rights and opportunities and it is positive that more of society is represented by those wielding power. However, power structures open to exploitation remain. I've seen both women and men exploit power imbalances socially and in the workplace to mistreat others. It's the power that corrupts, not the chromosome.

The Samaritans are a wonderful organization and two out of the four times I have been in the absolute desperation to phone them were really helpful experiences. Unfortunately, the other two I got the distinct impression that the volunteers weren't interested in listening to a man.

Yeah... not how it is promoted these days. A good friend of mine is an intelligent, reasonable, self sufficient professional. I avoid talking politics with her because that is where her reasonableness ends. She has zero interest in equality, she wants women to be twice as dominant as men ever were and defends any and all examples of mistreatment of men by women, as fully justified in all circumstances. It's like a strange part of her personality that is disconnected from the rest. I know we are good friends, but I also know that a part of her sees all straight, white, middle aged men like me as the devil. I can't tell you how much listening to women with similar beliefs about men encouraged me to lose sympathy with women's causes in general. I think a signficant proportion just want to blame their own self-perceived failings on the 'patriarchy'. Blame and hatred of others is a time tested way of boosting toxic self esteem.