In her interesting response ‘Suicide is always a public health issue’, Susan Pennings puts forward a critique of a current controversy article written by us, ‘When is suicide a public health issue?’. Most notably, Pennings argues that national suicide prevention strategies have an important expressive function and that the framework proposed in our original piece would undermine this function. In this article, we will be responding to some of the objections raised by Pennings. We will be arguing that the approach proposed in the original article would not be undermining the expressive function of suicide prevention, but rather championing the principle of autonomy as opposed to a modified sanctity of life ideal. We will aim to demonstrate that this constitutes a more inclusive and nuanced approach, better able to accommodate the increasing cultural and religious pluralism Pennings herself alludes to in her critique.