News Forum - Thai teen boy’s quick-thinking potentially saves life in suspected suicide attempt

[Thaiger]

A dramatic incident unfolded at around noon yesterday when a 16 year old girl attempted to commit suicide by leaping from a three-storey school building in Non Din Daeng, Buriram province. Luckily, a male student, also in Year 9, who was nearby playing games, rushed to catch her. They both fell from the third floor … …

The story Thai teen boy’s quick-thinking potentially saves life in suspected suicide attempt as seen on Thaiger News.

Read the full story

[Karolyn]

Is there a point saving those who want to die?

Its OK to kill an unborn baby, supposedly on its own behalf, though it obvuously isn't the baby's choice. But when someone suicidal, but otherwise sane, actually chooses their own death, everyone else has a duty, to try and stop them?

What right has anyone to interfere in a suicide? Really it is their choice. 

[Vigo]

5 minutes ago, Karolyn said:

Is there a point saving those who want to die?

Its OK to kill an unborn baby, supposedly on its own behalf, though it obvuously isn't the baby's choice. But when someone suicidal, but otherwise sane, actually chooses their own death, everyone else has a duty, to try and stop them?

What right has anyone to interfere in a suicide? Really it is their choice. 

Feel free to run your life as you see fit. However, the comparison you present is embarrassingly simple minded and lacking in the understanding of the basics of suicidal tendencies.  A fetus is not an unborn baby. You can call it that, just as some people call themselves penguins, but it does not make them that. Nor is an abortion comparable to an adolescent episode.

In this case, there was a distraught child. A young girl in an obvious depressed state missing her mother. Young teens of this age often experience depression and it is rarely permanent. They manage through with the help of friends, family and general community interaction. The girl's actions were hardly sane, and it is  likely that in a year from now she will will be asking herself what was she thinking and how lucky there was someone to intervene.

[Fanta]

16 minutes ago, Karolyn said:

What right has anyone to interfere in a suicide?

It is not interference. It is compassion. 

[Aussieroaming]

Well done young man, you are a hero. I hope the girl gets support for her depression.

[Marble-eye]

12 hours ago, Karolyn said:

Is there a point saving those who want to die?

Its OK to kill an unborn baby, supposedly on its own behalf, though it obvuously isn't the baby's choice. But when someone suicidal, but otherwise sane, actually chooses their own death, everyone else has a duty, to try and stop them?

What right has anyone to interfere in a suicide? Really it is their choice. 

That's a it harsh Karolyn, the young girl obviously needs help with her depression, I sure there will be many people alive today living happy lives that have tried to take their own lives in the past and well done to all the interventions that have saved lives.

[Marc26]

12 hours ago, Karolyn said:

Is there a point saving those who want to die?

Its OK to kill an unborn baby, supposedly on its own behalf, though it obvuously isn't the baby's choice. But when someone suicidal, but otherwise sane, actually chooses their own death, everyone else has a duty, to try and stop them?

What right has anyone to interfere in a suicide? Really it is their choice. 

You really say some bizarre shit on here......

[gazmo16]

well done to this lad for doing the right thing at the right moment, all too often nowadays first thought is to grab a phone not someone's hand sadly. 

As for ones right to take their own life I'm sorry but I totally disagree with you Karolyn. If you had suggested the act after a long life of physical pain or incurable illness even that would be understandable, but abortion is not the same as taking your own life and can't be compared as such in my opinion.

[Karolyn]

58 minutes ago, Marc26 said:

You really say some bizarre shit on here......

It is not bizarre in the least. If someone wants to die, let them. It is their choice. Rightly or wrongly, society decided choice > life when abortion was decriminalised. I am not basing an argument, on the morality of that, but on the legal fact. Because the moral issues regarding the suicide choice, are less than those surrounding abortion.

People are known to commit suicide for different reasons, they might be suffering, or they might not want to be a burden to their loved ones, or it might be shame/guilt. It's the choice of the suicidal, sometimes it's a responsible action, and people are not heroes just for intervening. It might be no better to prevent someone's personal choice, than it is to assist it. 

[Karolyn]

17 minutes ago, gazmo16 said:

well done to this lad for doing the right thing at the right moment, all too often nowadays first thought is to grab a phone not someone's hand sadly. 

As for ones right to take their own life I'm sorry but I totally disagree with you Karolyn. If you had suggested the act after a long life of physical pain or incurable illness even that would be understandable, but abortion is not the same as taking your own life and can't be compared as such in my opinion.

If we were talking personal viewpoints, I tend to be anti abortion unless it's for a good reason, like extreme disability, or risk to the mother. But my point isn't based on any view of abortion, but the legal and social realities, and stupid hypocrisies.

If your going to discuss a situation about the choice of someone to end a life, it's a suitable analogy. Yes, there are differences between the situations: of course there are, it's just a useful analogy. There are also similarities.

Do people have a right to bodily integrity or not? Do they have a right to choose, or not? Is it OK to intervene in someone's life or death choice, as regards their own body, or not?

If someone can legally choose to take a life, based on muh body muh choice, and if its illegal to stop them, it has obvious implications for those interfering, without invitation, in someone else's voluntary autocide.

[Karolyn]

13 hours ago, Vigo said:

Feel free to run your life as you see fit. However, the comparison you present is embarrassingly simple minded and lacking in the understanding of the basics of suicidal tendencies.  A fetus is not an unborn baby. You can call it that, just as some people call themselves penguins, but it does not make them that. Nor is an abortion comparable to an adolescent episode.

I didn't mention abortion, because of the nature of foetuses. But because of the nature of bodily integrity, the right to choose etc. 

Its interesting at least two people, commenting in this thread, mention my reference to abortion. (US cultural bias?) Which was only as a frame of reference, as regards personal choices, versus the sacred human life idea, that every bit of sperm is sacred, if you like.

Like it or not the girl made a choice. The choice was about what to do, with her own body,and her own life and its future. Admittedly it's, a strain to make the comparison, when it's outside of a clinical setting. But someone is seeking an 'exit' nonetheless.

But yea, I'm cynically taking the piss out of people's assumptions and preferences, and double standards. News stories never have all the facts, but they are 'good to think with', no? Good to examine peoples biases with. 

[Marc26]

23 minutes ago, Karolyn said:

It is not bizarre in the least. If someone wants to die, let them. It is their choice. Rightly or wrongly, society decided choice > life when abortion was decriminalised. I am not basing an argument, on the morality of that, but on the legal fact. Because the moral issues regarding the suicide choice, are less than those surrounding abortion.

People are known to commit suicide for different reasons, they might be suffering, or they might not want to be a burden to their loved ones, or it might be shame/guilt. It's the choice of the suicidal, sometimes it's a responsible action, and people are not heroes just for intervening. It might be no better to prevent someone's personal choice, than it is to assist it. 

As someone else mentioned before

 

It was a young girl that probably didn't understand all the ramifications 

 

 

If you can't understand that or just want to get on your abortion soapbox, then have it

But I think we all know the intention of your post is to speak on your abortion beliefs 

Nothing more, nothing less....

 

 

 

 

[Karolyn]

23 minutes ago, Marc26 said:

As someone else mentioned before

It was a young girl that probably didn't understand all the ramifications 

If you can't understand that or just want to get on your abortion soapbox, then have it

But I think we all know the intention of your post is to speak on your abortion beliefs 

Nothing more, nothing less....

 

Its not an abortion soapbox. I do have some negativity about the subject. But it's a foil to examine ones own hypocrisies, faced with someone's choice about their own body.

I am not North American, people from Europe rarely see the abortion debate the way North Americans do, we always view it in wider social and bioethical contexts. Don't project North American sensibilities onto people with different heritages. 

In any case, if you Google for 'pro-choice suicide' it is actually standard to compare the two subjects. Despite the differences, there are similarities. For some reasons, the Aussies seem prone to making the comparison. 

The comparison is less to abortion, than it is protesters outside abortion clinics, trying to save women.

Would it be OK for them,for example, to physically grab someone, in order to stop what they see as murder? Or does the physical integrity of all people matter?

Is it OK for them to try and talk to women outside clinics, to talk them out of a decision they disagree with? Even many pro-life women, think they get a bit aggressive.

Why is stopping a suicide any different? This is the situation when someone is restrained, or even discouraged. However well intentioned the intervening individual might be. Never studied philosophy, have you? 

Edited July 5, 2023 by Karolyn

[Vigo]

2 hours ago, Karolyn said:

Its not an abortion soapbox. I do have some negativity about the subject. But it's a foil to examine ones own hypocrisies, faced with someone's choice about their own body.

I am not North American, people from Europe rarely see the abortion debate the way North Americans do, we always view it in wider social and bioethical contexts. Don't project North American sensibilities onto people with different heritages. 

In any case, if you Google for 'pro-choice suicide' it is actually standard to compare the two subjects. Despite the differences, there are similarities. For some reasons, the Aussies seem prone to making the comparison. 

The comparison is less to abortion, than it is protesters outside abortion clinics, trying to save women.

Would it be OK for them,for example, to physically grab someone, in order to stop what they see as murder? Or does the physical integrity of all people matter?

Is it OK for them to try and talk to women outside clinics, to talk them out of a decision they disagree with? Even many pro-life women, think they get a bit aggressive.

Why is stopping a suicide any different? This is the situation when someone is restrained, or even discouraged. However well intentioned the intervening individual might be. Never studied philosophy, have you? 

The attempt to link multiple activities is simple minded and despite your insistence to the contrary, is illogical. You have no knowledge of the case, and yet make multiple erroneous assumptions. You refer to the "law" but have no understanding of the legal concepts involved. Let's review;

1. You assume that the suicidal child had an informed and coherent understanding of her situation. In the absence of a confirmation that the child was aware of her condition and had made an informed decision, the law and basic common sense holds that the  issue requires pause to consider and to assess the situation. In plain language, intervention.  Depression is considered an ailment and it has been established that teenagers undergo bouts of depression as part of their normal physiological and emotional development. Most children have mild depression that clears quickly, while others can have  a depression that can linger because of outside or organic influences.  Your argument holds that a child depressed over a pending family divorce should be allowed to commit suicide. Some kids + stress over their academic results, and we see their suicide every year in some countries. You are the only person I have ever seen  argue that such an action is acceptable. 

2. You insist on using the term "killing an unborn baby".  No one here agreeing with the  prevention of the suicide has argued for baby killing. Not even those who support a woman's right to control her reproductive system, including  the right to an abortion, supports "killing babies". The health professionals who perform abortions do not "kill babies", nor does a woman who requests an abortion wake up one day and says I want to kill a baby.  Your use of the expression is intentionally incendiary and equates any act of conception as "killing babies".  In your world, the use of birth control is considered "killing babies" too.  The use of hormones to counteract other hormones that prevent a fertilized egg from attaching to the wall of the uterus is also  called "killing babies". These are your religious or cultural beliefs and values. Good for you. 

3. This is a situation of a troubled child with no evidence of sober thought or even knowledge of her condition. You have attempted to use a child's mental health crisis to promote your own personal doctrine on women's reproductive rights and it is reprehensible. Your position is a vile exploitation of a child in crisis. 

[Karolyn]

51 minutes ago, Vigo said:

The attempt to link multiple activities is simple minded and despite your insistence to the contrary, is illogical. You have no knowledge of the case, and yet make multiple erroneous assumptions. You refer to the "law" but have no understanding of the legal concepts involved. Let's review;

1. You assume that the suicidal child had an informed and coherent understanding of her situation. In the absence of a confirmation that the child was aware of her condition and had made an informed decision, the law and basic common sense holds that the  issue requires pause to consider and to assess the situation. In plain language, intervention.  Depression is considered an ailment and it has been established that teenagers undergo bouts of depression as part of their normal physiological and emotional development. Most children have mild depression that clears quickly, while others can have  a depression that can linger because of outside or organic influences.  Your argument holds that a child depressed over a pending family divorce should be allowed to commit suicide. Some kids + stress over their academic results, and we see their suicide every year in some countries. You are the only person I have ever seen  argue that such an action is acceptable. 

2. You insist on using the term "killing an unborn baby".  No one here agreeing with the  prevention of the suicide has argued for baby killing. Not even those who support a woman's right to control her reproductive system, including  the right to an abortion, supports "killing babies". The health professionals who perform abortions do not "kill babies", nor does a woman who requests an abortion wake up one day and says I want to kill a baby.  Your use of the expression is intentionally incendiary and equates any act of conception as "killing babies".  In your world, the use of birth control is considered "killing babies" too.  The use of hormones to counteract other hormones that prevent a fertilized egg from attaching to the wall of the uterus is also  called "killing babies". These are your religious or cultural beliefs and values. Good for you. 

3. This is a situation of a troubled child with no evidence of sober thought or even knowledge of her condition. You have attempted to use a child's mental health crisis to promote your own personal doctrine on women's reproductive rights and it is reprehensible. Your position is a vile exploitation of a child in crisis. 

"The attempt to link multiple activities is simple minded and despite your insistence to the contrary, is illogical." - then the proper use of analogy in argument must be dead?

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/reasoning-analogy/

You mind me of that kooky parallel logic woman, who was on freethought blogs. She felt uncomfortable when real rationalists, argued powerfully, rationally and proportionally, from analogy. So she invented the insult of 'parallel logic' without realising, she was only validating the usefulness, of comparisons to parallels. As all of us do in our reasoning, and probably every day.

"You assume that the suicidal child" - I confess I was thinking more generally, about how we relate to stories about suicide attempts. But she was not a child. 

"Depression is considered an ailment and it has been established that teenagers undergo bouts of depression as part of their normal physiological and emotional development." - That observation is like very, very close to saying, you can't assume she was insane or pathological. And therefore her decision was (we might reasonably assume?) that of a normal-is, youthful mind. One capable of rational decision making, although stressed.

"You insist on using the term "killing an unborn baby".  No one here agreeing with the  prevention of the suicide has argued for baby killing." - It doesn't matter. Abortion was just an analogy, I chose to provide frames of reference for my own argument.

I could have chosen other analogies to make the point about persuasion and coercion. But there's also the direct analogy thing, about bodies and choices. (Which actually apply more consistently to suicide, than to the more usual context, of abortion.)

There is a reason I don't usually debate things like abortion, with North Americans online. No, I was not making a value statement, about the ethics of abortion. So I won't even address that.

[Vigo]

6 hours ago, Karolyn said:

"The attempt to link multiple activities is simple minded and despite your insistence to the contrary, is illogical." - then the proper use of analogy in argument must be dead?

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/reasoning-analogy/

You mind me of that kooky parallel logic woman, who was on freethought blogs. She felt uncomfortable when real rationalists, argued powerfully, rationally and proportionally, from analogy. So she invented the insult of 'parallel logic' without realising, she was only validating the usefulness, of comparisons to parallels. As all of us do in our reasoning, and probably every day.

"You assume that the suicidal child" - I confess I was thinking more generally, about how we relate to stories about suicide attempts. But she was not a child. 

"Depression is considered an ailment and it has been established that teenagers undergo bouts of depression as part of their normal physiological and emotional development." - That observation is like very, very close to saying, you can't assume she was insane or pathological. And therefore her decision was (we might reasonably assume?) that of a normal-is, youthful mind. One capable of rational decision making, although stressed.

"You insist on using the term "killing an unborn baby".  No one here agreeing with the  prevention of the suicide has argued for baby killing." - It doesn't matter. Abortion was just an analogy, I chose to provide frames of reference for my own argument.

I could have chosen other analogies to make the point about persuasion and coercion. But there's also the direct analogy thing, about bodies and choices. (Which actually apply more consistently to suicide, than to the more usual context, of abortion.)

There is a reason I don't usually debate things like abortion, with North Americans online. No, I was not making a value statement, about the ethics of abortion. So I won't even address that.

You are all over the place with pseudo intellectual babble. I prefer to deal in facts. Because you present a statement as "fact" does not mean it is. Let's look at some of the more embarrassing errors you have asserted as fact;

You state: "You assume that the suicidal child" - I confess I was thinking more generally, about how we relate to stories about suicide attempts. But she was not a child. 

 

Fact: The suicidal person was indeed a child, and that is based upon community standard and the applicable law. Your attention is directed to the “Child Protection Act, B.E. 2546”.  As per Section 4 In the Act:  “Child” means a person below 18 years of age, but does not include those who have attained majority through marriage.   In respect to therapy or psychiatric care that she might receive, she would be counseled by a pediatric psychiatrist or a psychologist trained in child or adolescent mental health. These specialists have  treatment protocols that take into account the person's status as a developing person, who may have the body of an adult, but who still has the emotional development of a child.

Your attempt to back pedal on the inappropriate and factually incorrect comparison to "killing babies" is laughable. No one has advocated the killing of babies. The attempt to compare suicide and "killing babies" is not even a valid comparison since suicide is self harm and  "killing babies" is an act intended to cause harm to third parties. 

I used the term illogical and you have offered an inappropriate reference to analogical reasoning to deny that the child's crisis was common to developing humans. Instead you insist that the possibility that the child's actions were well conceived and thought out. Supporting my position are centuries of common sense understanding of how kids behave and it is a shared knowledge and experience that adults rely upon when they raise their own children. 

When One Direction broke up, young girls were threatening suicide too. I expect that now that they are adults and look back on their statements, the women must be  embarrassed and saying what foolish girls they were while laughing. This is part of growing up. Adolescent suicide is manageable and best treated with kindness and understanding and not advocating for death with the idiotic inappropriate comparison to "killing babies".  You are the one trying to distract by making multiple references to North Americans and abortion disputes. And no, the issues of abortion are not restricted to North America. Italy went through a recent upheaval, and I recall when I lived in France the anti abortionists would march through the street with impaled baby dolls covered in blood claiming  they were fighting le diable. I was more terrified of these lunatics than anything else.

[Karolyn]

16 year olds can be mums and dads, and depending where you are, they can vote, enter full time employment, or join the military. So I maintain we should assume a 16 year old 'girl' or young woman, knows what she is doing, if she makes a possibly rational choice.

"And no, the issues of abortion are not restricted to North America." - no, just your way of thinking about it is.

Edited July 6, 2023 by Karolyn

[Faraday]

25 minutes ago, Karolyn said:

16 year olds can be mums and dads, and depending where you are, they can vote, enter full time employment, or join the military. So I maintain we should assume a 16 year old 'girl' or young woman, knows what she is doing, if she makes a possibly rational choice.

"And no, the issues of abortion are not restricted to North America." - no, just your way of thinking about it is.

Unless, the balance of her mind was disturbed, as it almost always is,for people with suicidal tendencies.

We therefore, all of us, have  duty of care to intervene.

 

With most- & I don't have any numbers, people who ideate in this way, don't truly want to die.

They only want a 'big event' - which they interpret as suicide, to occur.

 

[Faraday]

If anyone is affected by this thread & feel they need to talk, please contact:

The Samaritans.

 

https://www.samaritansthai.com/news/samaritans-of-thailand-english-hotline/

 

Moderator