{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.02427564604541895, 'fraction_numerical': 0.012529365700861394, 'mean_word_length': 5.203883495145631, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Complicating Theory through Practice: Affirming the Right to Die for Suicidal People

Currently, suicidality is inadequately engaged with in suicide prevention methods. The key focus is on preventing people from dying, rather than validating suicidal ideation as a legitimate experience. As Alexandre Baril (2017; 2018; 2002) argues, in this refusal to validate suicidality, suicidal people are subjected to suicidism – a term Baril coined to describe the oppression suicidal people face which silences them and views their desire to die as illegitimate. Baril (2017) argues for a harm reduction approach to suicide which not only recognizes the validity of suicidality, but also supports suicidal people should they choose to die. In this paper, I seek to highlight Baril’s argument on affirming the choices of suicidal people through an engagement with three of his ideas: epistemic violence, biopower, and the injunction to happiness. While I agree with Baril’s harm reduction approach to suicide, I also contend that his argument becomes more complex when shifting from theory to practice. Therefore, alongside Baril’s work, I highlight the work of Kai Cheng Thom, who recognizes that failing to fight for suicidal people is equally as ableist as failing to listen to them.