4 ms·

And yet, I suspect the law has some provisions for determining the validity of a DNR based on the condition of the person at the time of signing it, in the same

by baddox 7y ago

And yet, I suspect the law has some provisions for determining the validity of a DNR based on the condition of the person at the time of signing it, in the same way it does for a will and testament.

sneak 7y ago
Giving second parties control over the bodily autonomy of a first party because of second party opinions (with the notable bright line exception being first party acts of violence toward others) is not part of any society in which I wish to participate.
- bryanrasmussen 7y ago
  Does this mean that anyone who wants to kill themselves at any time should be allowed to do so? If they lack the ability to do so for some reason should they be assisted? Is that should a moral imperative?
  - hestipod 7y ago
    I have never heard anyone rational, even in pro choice forums, say it should be a free for all. Put age limits on it since children have developing minds and lack the perspective to make such choices. Put awareness/rationality checks on it the same way we do any other medical procedure with informed consent. Unless the person is being purposefully isolated and kept from others, which is an edge case, I don't see a scenario where an invalid would be unable to find someone understanding to assist, thus the fear of being "forced to kill" FUD I hear often isn't realistic. Obviously the best thing to do is to minimize the numbers of people who end up in such situations by addressing root causes. But that is something society has proven unwilling to deal with at scale. There will always be some people who have intractable suffering, with no tolerable outcome possible, and they deserve a peaceful way out.
    - bryanrasmussen 7y ago
      OK well I don't know if the commenter I responded to was rational but it sure sounded like they wanted something much closer to a free for all than what you're advocating.
    - cf498 7y ago
      Its not as clear cut as you describe it, especially with the age limit. There are quite a few terminal kids who suffer unbearably and have for large parts of their lifes. Its not an easy topic, but the Netherlands as well as Belgium have included children in their assisted suicide laws for a reason. Its nicer to not think about the consequences of ones opinion on the matter, but suffering doesnt care for your age or mental development. And the reality is that if you outlaw assisted suicide you condemn some people to literal torture.
    - bryanrasmussen 7y ago
      You will note that the original commenter that I replied to replied back, with a yes that it should be a free for all.
  - sneak 7y ago
    Yes. Why shouldn’t they be able to self-realize at all times, and for any reason? Assistance is a whole ‘nother ballpark. I don’t think it’s a moral imperative for anyone to do anything for a second party that the first does not fully consent to.
- baddox 7y ago
  Say someone blackmails you to compel you to sign a DNR. Should that be considered valid? Or should another party be able to determine whether the legal order is valid?
  - sneak 7y ago
    This is a good point, but is an edge case: a contract made under duress (external coercion) is not valid. That is implicit. What I am speaking of is of a person plainly expressing their own intent, perhaps to the contrary opinions of medical professionals, family, legal professionals, et c. Obviously if that expression of intent was coerced, there is a question of legitimacy of the expression of intent itself. But that is not really what we are discussing. There is of course room for legal opinion on whether or not the documentation of the intent is valid or not. But the intent itself cannot morally be questioned by any second party for any reason, on any grounds. Our bodies are our own.
zaroth 7y ago
Resuscitation can be a fairly violent medical intervention. That to me paints a fairly stark difference between the autonomy to sign a DNR and something like euthanasia. If someone is not able to sign a DNR it must be because they have no autonomy over their medical care at all at that point. Which of course happens regularly but needs precise controls and protocols, and of course is rife for abuse. Generally the presence of an intervention versus choosing not to intervene provides a clear dividing line. In this case, the choice not to force feed someone who is refusing food is why this is not euthanasia. I think for example if someone has a previously executed DNR, I would say a valid medical proxy would not be able to override it. I’m trying to recall an instance when I filled out such a form for my wife before a procedure, I seem to recall there even being a section on resuscitation and whether the appointee could make that call?

by baddox 7y ago

And yet, I suspect the law has some provisions for determining the validity of a DNR based on the condition of the person at the time of signing it, in the same way it does for a will and testament.

sneak 7y ago

Giving second parties control over the bodily autonomy of a first party because of second party opinions (with the notable bright line exception being first party acts of violence toward others) is not part of any society in which I wish to participate.

bryanrasmussen 7y ago
Does this mean that anyone who wants to kill themselves at any time should be allowed to do so? If they lack the ability to do so for some reason should they be assisted? Is that should a moral imperative?
- hestipod 7y ago
  I have never heard anyone rational, even in pro choice forums, say it should be a free for all. Put age limits on it since children have developing minds and lack the perspective to make such choices. Put awareness/rationality checks on it the same way we do any other medical procedure with informed consent. Unless the person is being purposefully isolated and kept from others, which is an edge case, I don't see a scenario where an invalid would be unable to find someone understanding to assist, thus the fear of being "forced to kill" FUD I hear often isn't realistic. Obviously the best thing to do is to minimize the numbers of people who end up in such situations by addressing root causes. But that is something society has proven unwilling to deal with at scale. There will always be some people who have intractable suffering, with no tolerable outcome possible, and they deserve a peaceful way out.
  - bryanrasmussen 7y ago
    OK well I don't know if the commenter I responded to was rational but it sure sounded like they wanted something much closer to a free for all than what you're advocating.
  - cf498 7y ago
    Its not as clear cut as you describe it, especially with the age limit. There are quite a few terminal kids who suffer unbearably and have for large parts of their lifes. Its not an easy topic, but the Netherlands as well as Belgium have included children in their assisted suicide laws for a reason. Its nicer to not think about the consequences of ones opinion on the matter, but suffering doesnt care for your age or mental development. And the reality is that if you outlaw assisted suicide you condemn some people to literal torture.
  - bryanrasmussen 7y ago
    You will note that the original commenter that I replied to replied back, with a yes that it should be a free for all.
- sneak 7y ago
  Yes. Why shouldn’t they be able to self-realize at all times, and for any reason? Assistance is a whole ‘nother ballpark. I don’t think it’s a moral imperative for anyone to do anything for a second party that the first does not fully consent to.
baddox 7y ago
Say someone blackmails you to compel you to sign a DNR. Should that be considered valid? Or should another party be able to determine whether the legal order is valid?
- sneak 7y ago
  This is a good point, but is an edge case: a contract made under duress (external coercion) is not valid. That is implicit. What I am speaking of is of a person plainly expressing their own intent, perhaps to the contrary opinions of medical professionals, family, legal professionals, et c. Obviously if that expression of intent was coerced, there is a question of legitimacy of the expression of intent itself. But that is not really what we are discussing. There is of course room for legal opinion on whether or not the documentation of the intent is valid or not. But the intent itself cannot morally be questioned by any second party for any reason, on any grounds. Our bodies are our own.

zaroth 7y ago

Resuscitation can be a fairly violent medical intervention. That to me paints a fairly stark difference between the autonomy to sign a DNR and something like euthanasia. If someone is not able to sign a DNR it must be because they have no autonomy over their medical care at all at that point. Which of course happens regularly but needs precise controls and protocols, and of course is rife for abuse. Generally the presence of an intervention versus choosing not to intervene provides a clear dividing line. In this case, the choice not to force feed someone who is refusing food is why this is not euthanasia. I think for example if someone has a previously executed DNR, I would say a valid medical proxy would not be able to override it. I’m trying to recall an instance when I filled out such a form for my wife before a procedure, I seem to recall there even being a section on resuscitation and whether the appointee could make that call?