Somebody upthread decided to divert the discussion from suicide in general to euthanasia of medically approved hopeless cases. I’m just (trying to) drag the discussion back to where it was.
Fair enough.
I certainly find the alerts annoying enough. And “it’s just one of a half dozen other pieces of slop that appear with the search results” isn’t a good excuse. Google needs to get rid of all of them.
I am reminded now of two things at least tangentially related to this thread:
(1) Shortly after I got out of the Navy, I was having such a hard time navigating the dual-headed monster that is the DOD and VA’s bureaucracy (in part because the Navy failed to provide me with a DD 214 at time of discharge/retirement) that the veterans suicide hotline actually called me (apparently, one of the functionaries I was on the phone with, expressing my displeasure at not being able to get setup at the VA for follow-on care after being medically retired for PTSD of all things, got worried and called the hotline to call me). I’m… actually kind of proud of that, in a “Look, dad, an F! 
” sort of way.
(2) When I get a hotel room, I open up the Bible (if there is one) and flip through the opening pages to where it says something like “Feeling lost? Depressed? Suicidal? Keep reading [the Bible] for answers!” Then I take out my pen, circle the suicide part, and draw an arrow to where I write “Call the national suicide prevention hotline: 988.”
Suicide hotlines don’t stop you from killing yourself unless you choose to call one. Your choice. There are people who are despairing who are still looking for a way out other than suicide. That’s who calls suicide hotlines.
And there are a lot of people who are glad they didn’t kill themselves.
Correct on the first part, incorrect on the second. Euthanisia is funded by the government, but it is not delivered by the government.
The government plays no part in our health care; let’s get that out of the way right now. No government functionary tells me what I can do, what I cannot do in regards to my health. If I want to smoke three packs a day and down a 12-pack of beer daily and eat nothing but Big Macs and fries and poutine, they are helpless to stop me.
The confusion may occur because we have a so-called “single-payer health insurance plan.” Well, that’s true enough, but I’m guessing what confuses Americans is the word, “insurance.” Because they buy actual health insurance, where actuaries assess the risk, and set a rate upon which the premium is based, and when a claim is made, claims adjusters decide whether to pay it. A lot of the care provided in the US is based on what the insurance company decides. The doctor may say it’s necessary, but if an insurance company bureaucrat says it’s not, then no care for you, unless you’re willing to pay out of pocket.
This is where Canadian single-payer “insurance” and American health insurance differ. Because in Canada, there are no actuaries, no claims adjusters, no government functionaries standing between you and the care you need. If your doctor says you need an XYZ procedure, then you get an XYZ procedure, and the government cannot say a word against you receiving one. The doctor sends a bill to the government, and the government pays it, no questions asked.
It’s always between you and your doctor, no government involvement. Same for medically-assisted suicide. It’s not the government who delivers it; it’s a doctor. Who is not employed by the government in any capacity. And any decision is made by the patient, after consultation with his or her doctor, who, again, is not employed by the government. And which patient can say “Stop” at any time, halting the procedure.
This idea that the Canadian or provincial governments deliver euthanasia on their own initiative for whatever reason, must stop.
No, you dragged the discussion into new territory when you said this:
Maybe we’re talking past each other, but this really bothered me, because there’s a huge and fundamental distinction between a terminally ill patient with no hope of recovery wishing to end their suffering, and some teenager in a state of depression because of some downturn in their life. It’s the latter that suicide helplines are for. If you don’t think that promoting suicide prevention helplines is a social responsibility that Google should be providing, then I don’t think you have a clear perspective on social priorities, like the priorities of parents who have children.
There certainly are, and thank you for that observation. And the world is better off for having them.
Yeah. At age 16, I remember getting out my pocketknife, and looking at my wrist, and thinking, “Do I dare?” I didn’t, as you can tell, but I was seriously considering it.
I wish there had been a 988 in those days.
Fair enough; thanks for the additional detail.
That still seems like an overstatement. Obviously the doctor cannot do anything illegal. And yet according to the article, the law is at least part of the problem:
“Either the law is too broad, or the professional guidance not precise enough,” Lemmens said. “Or it is simply not seen as a priority to protect some of our most vulnerable citizens.”
And there is “professional guidance” as well–I presume this includes the expert committee mentioned in the article, among other organizations. Professional practice doesn’t exist in a vacuum.
And in general, I’m fairly sure that “questions would be asked” if there was unusual billing from a doctor. Fraud, certainly. Which could include unnecessary procedures.
I never said anything remotely like that. But simply making it too easy is bad enough. Any instances where it was not a clear last resort should be investigated.
So just to be clear: if one of my students, who I happen to know isn’t taking her meds because her shitty foster parents dropped the ball on filling out insurance paperwork, comes to me with suicidal ideation, my ethical responsibility according to your moral framework is to say “yeah! Go for it!”
That about right?
I understand the annoyance of getting 988 messages when you’re just doing research. But if this alert even helps a few people who may be struggling, I think it’s worth the minor inconvenience to those who don’t need it. That said, privacy is key. A discreet text message that doesn’t draw public attention would be better than an audio reply, so people in distress aren’t ‘outed’ in potentially vulnerable situations. It’s a small adjustment that could make a big difference for anyone who might actually need help.
Perhaps. But, if you, for example, start getting replies like, “Not always. You should try a higher dosage” to your search, “is a 40mg dose of Oxycontin lethal?”…then I’d be more suspicious.
I have never gotten an audio reply to any text Google search ever. I guess in the rare occasions when i yell “hey Google, what is …” from across the room, it answers me aloud. But if you are yelling questions about suicide at your phone, the phone isn’t the entity that outed your interest in suicide.
Has anyone here gotten a 988 message aloud to a query that wasn’t delivered aloud?
Wes, your OPSEC skills are skibbidy toilet Ohio. Bruhhhh!
Google is sus AF. They keep your search history, and use trackers and cookies. It’s best to use Brave and Start Page search engines, along with the Brave browser.
Midwest Degenerate Gambler
-Google is beta.
I haven’t, but apparently the OP has.
Yeah Bravel is totally legit. All the scammy Bitcoin and NFT advertising is just a bonus! Nothing like a good helping of sleaze to boost my confidence in it.
I understand reticence about Google services, after all the user is the product. Brave isn’t the browser I’ll replace it with. Yes it does a good job of blocking normal ads, but it has its own ads and is very suspect.
I am trying different options for search as Google seems to be returning an ever greater list of paid results.
OP didn’t say whether they asked Google by voice or some other way, did they?
He later clarified he was, in fact, using voice search.
It’s actually in the next sentence of that quote (post 59 or is it 58? Right around there.):
Point taken. Still, I believe it’s a more responsible approach for Google to provide alerts in text format, even if someone starts a search through audio. Imagine someone in distress—let’s say, they’re quietly (i.e. whispering) researching suicide prevention resources in a library. The last thing they’d want is a loud, sudden response, like “Call 988 immediately!”
Offering these alerts through text would allow critical guidance to reach those in need while protecting their privacy.
ISTM, a library is the last place you’d want any type of loud, sudden response. Regardless of it’s about suicide prevention or anything else.
I feel like if you’re speaking at your phone, you’re expecting audible responses, since that’s what they do. My issue above, and I think other people’s issue, is that we were under the impression that this was an audible response to a typed question.
But, yes, if I’m in a library and type on my phone ‘easiest way to commit suicide’, I’d be appalled if my phone audibly provided suicide prevention resources. OTOH, if I said "Hey Siri/Google/Alexa, what’s the easiest way to commit suicide?', I’m already expecting it to respond audibly. The prevention tips might be obnoxious, but does it really matter if my phone says “Call this suicide prevention line” before it gives the actual response? At least WRT what people within earshot will hear? Keeping in mind that those same people may have heard what you asked it as well.
Also, regardless of the question you asked it, even if you whispered, it was going to loudly blurt out the answer anyways. So even without the warning, everyone around you is going to hear the answer.
Can’t you just turn the audio off? I’m pretty sure there’s a setting to do that. I mean, other than the volume.