5 ms·
The problem is that this hypothetical person is severely mentally ill. And thus not rational. This means their answer to the question cannot be taken at face
by rmah 4y ago
The problem is that this hypothetical person is severely mentally ill. And thus not rational. This means their answer to the question cannot be taken at face value. You write, "if someone would rather"... as if they will hold the same opinion after the same after treatment as before. If asked again after a course of treatment, they may opt to be released. Or they may be incredibly thankful for the intervention.
IMO, what you're saying is analogous to "if someone suffering from clinical depression wants to kill themselves, let them." I vote no. Please think about it a bit.
- notch656a 4y agoI don't think their should be a court of rationality. You should have the right to be irrational, including the right to commit suicide because sad face or a lizard looked at you wrong, if you can do it without aggressing upon others. Your body, your choice.
- rmah 4y agoWell, that's an opinion, I guess.
- carewell 4y agoI don't know if it's some extreme libertarianism or just pure lack of compassion. Some people need - and deserve - help. "Your body, your choice" is just an all-around horrible argument to use for justifying suicide due to mentally or emotionally compromised state.
- notch656a 4y agoIt's not the offering of help I take issue with. It's the use of force/violence to impose it, most especially in cases where there is no criminal wrongdoing. Personally I find your stance far more judgmental than mine; no one needs to 'justify' to someone else why they will or will not commit suicide. It's not even for me to justify or not when someone else does that and I reject your allegation I've done so.
- carewell 4y agoHave you ever faced a person cutting their veins in a psychotic episode? I have. Saying that it's OK to let them bleed out because they refuse help is an asinine, inhumane position. It seems you are speaking from a very disconnected theoretical standpoint, ignoring the vastness of extreme human conditions.
- notch656a 4y agoI imagine that was a traumatic experience for you. Trauma has been known to make people make irrational and poor choices. I can't honestly say I know that living in a psychosis (medicated or not) is always better than dying. I defer that judgement to the owner of the body contemplating suicide. Personally no I would not stop the bleeding if asked not to, whether their choice was rational or not. I believe consent and personal choices trump my feelings or trauma from past experiences, even if it turns out the choice of others may be misplaced.
- carewell 4y agoSo has ignorance.
- notch656a 4y agoSo this isn't meant at all to provide an analogy, as it's a different circumstance. But I'm curious about your personal opinion. Someone has curable cancer (but definitively imminently fatal), but they irrationally reject treatment saying "the stars aren't aligned properly for it" or some nonsense like that. OK to tie them down and cut out the cancer? I'm always curious where people draw the line for when force is ok to use to make someone do the 'better' or more life-giving thing. It would be odd indeed if it was OK to stop the dying only if they intentionally performed the action that led to their (imminent) death, but not OK to stop the dying if it was caused by something like a disease.
- carewell 4y ago
- blueprint 4y agohow many times are you going to say "aggressing"? is that even a real word?