4 ms·

We don't want to help people not kill themselves? This is depressive realism taken to a frightening new level. What DARPA is talking about need not be incompa

We don't want to help people not kill themselves? This is depressive realism taken to a frightening new level. What DARPA is talking about need not be incompatible with some relaxation around medically-assisted suicide. But people kill themselves for all sorts of terrible non-terminal reasons. Teenagers, especially. We should try to help them not do it. And research like this might shed more light. > By this logic, you will eventually even say people's eating habits and behavior should be monitored before they kill themselves by eating food that causes obesity and diabetes before dood addiction starts. "By this logic" === "Here's a straw man argument" > When euthanasia pods became a thing in sweden you all lauded it because someone is profiting. I am not in that particular "you all", thank you. > To your last paragraph: those people agree to consensual and explicitly stated evaluations not non-consensual psychological examination of a medical condition. Yes. But as I understand it, soldiers sign up for a lot of evaluations and even some interventions over which they have no choice.

_8j50 5y ago
> We don't want to help people not kill themselves? It's not help if you are violating consent of a person that has the ability to give consent. Minors and intoxicated people are some examples of people that can't gove consent in which case their legal guardian must give consent. The shitty thing about the tech scene is the utter disregard for consent because you know better. Few things I hold higher contempt for over people that violate consent because they know what is best for someone else over that person themselves. > But people kill themselves for all sorts of terrible non-terminal reasons. Teenagers, especially. We should try to help them not do it. And research like this might shed more light. Yes they do and they should be helped but only if they or their legal guardian provides consent and is willing to be helped. Have you actually tried to help a person in this situation? Nothing more humiliating or pushing over the edge than your private mental struggles being exposed and well meaning assholes now made your contemplations into an issue you must act on (as in kill yourself or chicken out). Ffs! It's slavery not help what you have in mind. Your intentions don't change that fact. > ...Here's a straw man argument" I can see why you would say that but both in law enforcement and tech there are plenty examples of things being done for someones best interest that end up having horrific consequences. 72 hour mental health lockup suicides is one. You lock them up for monitoring their mental health for their own good except now they are so scarred of being treated like psychiatric patient they can't recover from it. Or drunks being locked up so they don't hurt themselves except other prisoners have fun with them. > Yes. But as I understand it, soldiers sign up for a lot of evaluations and even some interventions over which they have no choice. Right and if the purpose is to save the government money on dead soldiers it should be stated as such. When framed as a mental health tool, it is only natural to apply it to civilians. Also, Soldiers should also be allowed a chance to consent explicitly just like with everything else.
- unfocussed_mike 5y ago
  > It's not help if you are violating consent of a person that has the ability to give consent. Minors and intoxicated people are some examples of people that can't gove consent in which case their legal guardian must give consent. Nothing about anyone seeking to help a loved one not kill themselves inherently requires consent. I said nothing about invasive processes, outside of the DARPA situation where they almost certainly have the consent they need already. > The shitty thing about the tech scene is the utter disregard for consent because you know better. This is projection. > Have you actually tried to help a person in this situation? Yes. And they're still around and living their life decades later. Because they were suicidal about something that could be substantially unburdened if they would just talk. And they weren't going to talk without an intervention (which was staged initially online, as it happens). > Nothing more humiliating or pushing over the edge than your private mental struggles being exposed and well meaning assholes now made your contemplations into an issue you must act on (as in kill yourself or chicken out). Ffs! It's slavery not help what you have in mind. Your intentions don't change that fact. Suicide is not a good alternative to humiliation. If this is where you are right now, talk to someone. I'm not going to continue this discussion because of what you say in the last paragraph I quoted. But if you need help, consider asking for it.
  - _8j50 5y ago
    You changed the subject and made it about me. This isn't personal it is a matter if principle. Everyone that can give consent must do so before you perform medical or behavioral analysis if the person. No exceptions. That was my point initially, using ends and emotions to get around this is absolute b.s.
    - unfocussed_mike 5y ago
      > You changed the subject and made it about me. I did. Out of concern, as I will whenever I hear people talk about suicide in quite a fatalistic manner. A stranger did this for me only two years ago and I am happier because of it.

_8j50 5y ago

> We don't want to help people not kill themselves? It's not help if you are violating consent of a person that has the ability to give consent. Minors and intoxicated people are some examples of people that can't gove consent in which case their legal guardian must give consent. The shitty thing about the tech scene is the utter disregard for consent because you know better. Few things I hold higher contempt for over people that violate consent because they know what is best for someone else over that person themselves. > But people kill themselves for all sorts of terrible non-terminal reasons. Teenagers, especially. We should try to help them not do it. And research like this might shed more light. Yes they do and they should be helped but only if they or their legal guardian provides consent and is willing to be helped. Have you actually tried to help a person in this situation? Nothing more humiliating or pushing over the edge than your private mental struggles being exposed and well meaning assholes now made your contemplations into an issue you must act on (as in kill yourself or chicken out). Ffs! It's slavery not help what you have in mind. Your intentions don't change that fact. > ...Here's a straw man argument" I can see why you would say that but both in law enforcement and tech there are plenty examples of things being done for someones best interest that end up having horrific consequences. 72 hour mental health lockup suicides is one. You lock them up for monitoring their mental health for their own good except now they are so scarred of being treated like psychiatric patient they can't recover from it. Or drunks being locked up so they don't hurt themselves except other prisoners have fun with them. > Yes. But as I understand it, soldiers sign up for a lot of evaluations and even some interventions over which they have no choice. Right and if the purpose is to save the government money on dead soldiers it should be stated as such. When framed as a mental health tool, it is only natural to apply it to civilians. Also, Soldiers should also be allowed a chance to consent explicitly just like with everything else.

unfocussed_mike 5y ago
> It's not help if you are violating consent of a person that has the ability to give consent. Minors and intoxicated people are some examples of people that can't gove consent in which case their legal guardian must give consent. Nothing about anyone seeking to help a loved one not kill themselves inherently requires consent. I said nothing about invasive processes, outside of the DARPA situation where they almost certainly have the consent they need already. > The shitty thing about the tech scene is the utter disregard for consent because you know better. This is projection. > Have you actually tried to help a person in this situation? Yes. And they're still around and living their life decades later. Because they were suicidal about something that could be substantially unburdened if they would just talk. And they weren't going to talk without an intervention (which was staged initially online, as it happens). > Nothing more humiliating or pushing over the edge than your private mental struggles being exposed and well meaning assholes now made your contemplations into an issue you must act on (as in kill yourself or chicken out). Ffs! It's slavery not help what you have in mind. Your intentions don't change that fact. Suicide is not a good alternative to humiliation. If this is where you are right now, talk to someone. I'm not going to continue this discussion because of what you say in the last paragraph I quoted. But if you need help, consider asking for it.
- _8j50 5y ago
  You changed the subject and made it about me. This isn't personal it is a matter if principle. Everyone that can give consent must do so before you perform medical or behavioral analysis if the person. No exceptions. That was my point initially, using ends and emotions to get around this is absolute b.s.
  - unfocussed_mike 5y ago
    > You changed the subject and made it about me. I did. Out of concern, as I will whenever I hear people talk about suicide in quite a fatalistic manner. A stranger did this for me only two years ago and I am happier because of it.