On Death And Dying

I like films that make me think. I recently saw one that set that process in motion, a film entitled "The Chumscrubber". It dealt with the aftermath of a teenage suicide ...the reaction of the adults and, more importantly, that of the other teenagers. This film was reminiscent of "Permanent Record", another teenage suicide movie, where the act was so traumatic to all others concerned mainly because [he] had no apparent reason for taking his own life, no indication whatsoever that he was so despondent that this was even a consideration.

Being a Gay male and having lived in San Francisco over the past thirty and some odd years, I'm well acquainted with death. We (myself and others so acquainted) don't treat the discussion of dying with the "kid glove" approach taken by so many. A person's impending demise is not regarded as some "white elephant" that is tiptoed around and alluded to with euphemisms such as passing on, or going to a better place. The act of dying is discussed matter-of-factly, and not patronizingly with comments implying that "things are going to be all right" ...especially when they so obviously aren't.

In dealing with the subject of "death and dying", Elisabeth Kubler-Ross penned a book by that very title. It amazed me how someone, regardless of [her] credentials, would be so presumptuous as to claim to understand the process of dying ...the experience of all the people who've ever died ...to distill the process down to five steps: denial, anger, bargaining, depression, and acceptance.

In the case of those who've self-terminated, there obviously was no denial, anger, or bargaining because before the act, they weren't actually dying. And the depression and acceptance would precede the act, and would likewise not be an actual part of their dying process.

Another recently-viewed film, "November", which was a cross between "All That Jazz" (without the music and dancing) and "Jacob's Ladder" (without the supernatural aspect), reduced this process to only three steps, which they labeled denial, despair, and acceptance.

Not having read [her] book, I'm making a major assumption here and perhaps Ms. Kubler-Ross was referring to a select few, and not applying this template to everyone's experience. (But no, I don't plan on reading the book.)

Cycling back to my initial subject, suicide -- especially by someone who's not a terminal patient or in excruciating physical pain, I started thinking about why this is so unacceptable, why the two previously-mentioned conditions are the only ones where the decision to self-terminate would be accepted and not considered insane. All living things are endowed with an extremely powerful survival instinct. But if despite this, someone arrived at the decision to not continue, is this not his decision to make?

Sure, such a decision is often temporary and the result of depression, and if one were to somehow get past that depression, he would be glad to not have succumbed. But allowing for that, what if you arrived at the point where "to survive wasn't enough; to simply exist wasn't not enough". After considerable deliberation, you concluded that you no longer wanted to live ...that your life was simply a matter of fact and not one of quality. Is it right for some external force(s) to insist on your continuing in a life that is absent of that "quality" that makes it meaningful to you?

It's funny how we live in a society that says that you're supposed to feel good ...all the time. If you don't feel good, there are pills, therapies, self-help books, and myriad support groups to help you get over it. Feeling bad is not a valid or acceptable condition ...well, only in certain situations and then, only for pre-determined periods.

Mind you, I am neither contemplating nor advocating suicide, but just thinking, looking at another perspective of an issue that's had only one acceptable viewpoint. That other perspective that everyone has, at some albeit ever-so-brief moment, queried, but only the few have actually explored.