But to say taking your own life because of such an illness is a ‘selfish’ act does nothing but insult the deceased, potentially cause more harm and reveal a staggering ignorance of mental health problems
The writer does not really touch on these main ideas throughout the article. They did not mention how Robin Williams would be insulted by comments like that or how they can cause more harm.
People should never be made to feel worse for suffering from something beyond their control.
Important concept to end with. I think at the end, he needs to tie all his points together and how they really relate to Robin Williams. It feels as thought the writer was using his name for views and only mentioned him a few times.
ignorant accusations
Ignorant is a harsh word to use, especially when people actually have the mindset that suicide is selfish. By reading this article, they may assume the author is calling them ignorant. The writer should just cut the word ignorant from this sentence to minimize harm.
Do you think that depression is “fashionable?” And by criticising the sufferers you can deter others from “joining in”? Granted, we hear more about depression than we used to these days, but then we know what it is now. We see a lot more photos from Mars these days, because we have the means of doing so now, not because it’s suddenly trendy. Perhaps you are trying to deter anyone else who might read your views from considering suicide themselves? Given that statistics suggest that one in four people suffer some sort of mental health problem, this isn’t that unlikely an occurrence. But if someone is genuinely depressed and feels their life is worthless, seeing that others consider their feeling selfish can surely only emphasise their own self-loathing and bleakness? It suggests that people will hate them even in death. Maybe you know some people who have “attempted” suicide purely for attention? Fair enough; a debatable conclusion, but even if you’re right, so what? Surely someone who succeeds at committing suicide is a genuine sufferer who deserves our sympathy? Perhaps you feel that those expressing sorrow and sadness are wrong and you need to show them that you know better, no matter how upsetting they may find it? And this is unselfish behaviour how, exactly?
Throughout the rest of the article, the tone shifts majorly. It started off as an informative piece, trying to explain how depression affects people differently and what they go through before making a life altering decision. But now, it is almost like the writer is attacking the people on the other side of the argument. They are not providing explanations of information, just questions that can be taken as offensive. Certainly this does not show professionalism.
But why would you want to publicly declare that the recently deceased is selfish? Especially when the news has only just broken, and people are clearly sad about the whole thing? Why is getting in to criticise the deceased when they’ve only just passed so important to you? What service are you providing by doing so, that makes you so justified in throwing accusations of selfishness around?
The tone here is a bit angry and offended. By asking so many questions, the writer seems to be wanting to know why people think indifferent to him, but the tone they hold makes it seem like an argument. That they don't actually appreciate a different opinion.
Fine. Your opinion, you’re entitled to have it, however much we may disagree.
This clearly states the authors beliefs. Their tone is strict, but they still makes sure the readers know that they can have a different opinion.
Stephen Fry, in his interview on Richard Herring’s podcast, had a brilliant explanation about how depression doesn’t make you think logically, or automatically confide in friends and family. I won’t spoil it by revealing it here, but I will say it involves genital warts.
This paragraph offers no new context for depression. I think the way it is worded may take readers away from the site before the writer finally answers the original overall question.
Or that it’s the “easy way out”. There are many ways to describe the sort of suffering that overrides a survival instinct that has evolved over millions of years, but “easy” isn’t an obvious one to go for.
This is an important concept for the readers to know that suicide is not easy. Coming to the decision or even thinking of the act is not easy, and it is important for the writer to note that. I think to better this they need to explain it a bit better, for many of the people reading they have not experienced those thoughts, so they do not understand.
rom the sufferers perspective, their self-worth may be so low, their outlook so bleak, that their families/friends/fans would be a lot better off without them in the world, ergo their suicide is actually intended as an act of generosity?
The writer says that this is not logical; however, to a depressed individual, this kind of thinking is completely logical. I think the writer needs to include this type of content instead of just jumping into the next topic. Then, readers can understand why people with depression think this way, instead of just saying, this is how they think.
ergo
Therefore
A depression sufferer
Using the term "sufferer" carries a negative connotation. Depression is not a good thing, but people don't want to be defined as sufferers. The writer should use terms like "A person suffering from depression" or "A mentally ill person."
Suffering is a symptom of depression, but the people who have it are not sufferers.
ted, those with worse lives are probably going to be exposed to the greater number of risk factors for depression, but that doesn’t mean those with reduced likelihood of exposure to hardships or tragic events are immune. Smoking may be a major cause of lung cancer, but non-smokers can end up with it. And a person’s lifestyle doesn’t automatically reduce their suffering. Depression doesn’t work like that. And even if it did, where’s the cut-off point? Who would we consider “too successful” to be ill?
This is an important concept for this type of article. If the writer omitted this, it would not provide the reader with enough information on what kind of people depression affects, along with the relevance that it is Robin Williams. The writer is trying to make sure the readers know that depression can affect anyone, no matter if they're a successful actor like Williams was.
Smoking may be a major cause of lung cancer, but non-smokers can end up with it.
This sentence does not add anything to back up his explanation of how lifestyle plays a role in depression. I think it is another poor analogy, but it shows that the writer is trying to connect a difficult subject, like mental illness, with something a majority of people are familiar with, smoking and second-hand smoke.
We’ve all heard of the “madness” of King George III;
This is an assumption-- "we've all heard of..." It can hurt the writers credibility to assume things. In this case, it hurts their explanation because now a powerful statement of "mental illness can affect anyone" is not backed up properly if someone does not know of the madness of King George III.
How, many seem to wonder, could someone with so much going for them, possibly feel depressed to the point of suicide? With all the money/fame/family/success they have, to be depressed makes no sense?
This content is helpful in reminding the reader of the overall topic at hand is Robin Williams. It also allows for readers to take the information and apply it to people that are not like them.
but there are decades’ worth of evidence saying you’re wrong.
I'm assuming that since this article was written in 2014, this hyperlink was from a website no longer operable, but with a "decade worth of research" certainly there should be an available link to show what the writer means. Maybe they could even explain some evidence they found, along with linking the source, so in case the link goes bad, the information still gets across.
dismissing the concerns of a genuine depression sufferer on the grounds that you’ve been miserable and got over it is like dismissing the issues faced by someone who’s had to have their arm amputated because you once had a paper cut and it didn’t bother you.
This analogy is a little weird in the sense that the writer is comparing depression to having a limb amputated, but it does have a tone that is strong and earnest. You can tell that the writer has strong emotions on this topic.
After all, everyone gets depressed now and again, don’t they?
I think the author needs to differentiate between sadness and depressed. Sadness is a short term feeling of being down, while being depressed is typically long-term.
At present, the word “depressed” can be applied to both people who are a bit miserable and those with a genuine debilitating mood disorder.
This sentence makes it seem like you have to be either completely miserable or have moods that change frequently, which is not always the case for depression. Depression can affect people differently with symptoms that vary case from case. It is not a general term.
Such an iconic, talented and beloved figure will have no shortage of tributes paid to him and his incredible legacy.
The words "iconic," "talented," and "beloved" can all show forms of biases. It can be assumed the writer was familiar with William's work and had a sincere/respectful tone with this sentence.
Robin Williams had passed away,
The wording of this phrase illustrates a euphemism. The correct way to word the phrase is, "Robin Williams died."