6 ms·

Well, should you be allowed to stop a suicide?

readthenotes1 4y ago
I have a relative who had to be taken to the hospital after scraping invisible mites out of their eyes with a razor blade. They asked them if she would like some antipsychotic medication and of course they said no. As a result, my question is, is it ever humane to not force treatment on the mentally ill
- ajb 4y ago
  Obviously it can be. See lobotomization and ECT just for starters (yes, I know ECT is supposed to be better now, don't really buy it)
  - gman2093 4y ago
    With respect, your statement about ECT is not aligned with reality. ECT is evidence-based and effective, with side effects that are less pronounced in many cases than drug-based therapies. It is approved for use in pregnant patients in the USA. One Flew over the Cuckoos Nest is not peer-reviewed.
    - deleted 4y ago
      [deleted]
    - generalizations 4y ago
      > There’s a risk of memory loss. Most people who undergo ECT have temporary memory loss and confusion. Most people's confusion clears up quickly, and memory loss usually goes away entirely within a few months. However, some people do have permanent memory problems. Using the right-unilateral electrode placement and shortening the electrical current duration can reduce the risk of this happening. https://my.clevelandclinic.org/health/treatments/9302-ect-electroconvulsive-therapy https://my.clevelandclinic.org/health/treatments/9302-ect-el...
    - cwillu 4y ago
      You agree to receive treatment, or you will not be released, and they get a court order rubber-stamped to say they can give you treatment without your consent. I don't remember what happened after. ECT has that effect.
    - ajb 4y ago
      Not aligned with current consensus, perhaps. But before you equate that to "reality", recall that the profession once had consensus about lobotomy. Evidence in psychological science is much more superficial than in, say, physics. I don't doubt that what you say is reflected in the literature, but I do doubt that it reflects the lived reality of those so treated.
- raverbashing 4y ago
  You are asking the right questions A lot of homelessness is due to different mental illnesses (not discounting the societal issues, and of course the drugs then make it worse) I really feel society sucks at dealing with the action/inaction assymetries
  - brodouevencode 4y ago
    Most homeless is due to mental illness. Almost always men with addiction issues. Many veterans suffering from PTSD. It's rarely the "single mother of two that lost her job at the plant" trope.
    - mattzito 4y ago
      I think a better way to frame it is "most _chronically_ homeless is due to mental illness". However, most homeless people are not chronically homeless, and are homeless for <6 months. Those are the single mother of two who lost their job at the plant examples - or left an abusive relationship and is living in their car, or underemployed as a security guard and sleeping in a sheleter, etc. Unfortunately, and equally sad, many of these folks work, send their kids to school, and struggle to get themselves into a stable long-term situation.
      - trynewideas 4y ago
        HUD data, for the US at least:[1] - 582,484 total homeless - 138,361 chronically homeless - 122,888 total homeless reporting severe mental illness - 48,373 total homeless victims of domestic violence - 33,129 total homeless veterans VA count of veteran homelessness was down 10% or more YoY in 2021 and 2022, and down 55% since 2010.[2] Veterans comprise about 10% of the total US population and 5.6% of the homeless population. Among veterans, PTSD was less of a risk factor than psychotic disorders, an equal factor to other mental health disorders, and mental illness in general was less of a risk factor than money mismanagement and could be mitigated by VA services, especially disability compensation.[3] 1: https://files.hudexchange.info/reports/published/CoC_PopSub_NatlTerrDC_2022.pdf https://files.hudexchange.info/reports/published/CoC_PopSub_... 2: https://www.va.gov/homeless/pit_count.asp https://www.va.gov/homeless/pit_count.asp 3: https://doi.org/10.1093/epirev/mxu004 https://doi.org/10.1093/epirev/mxu004
andrewclunn 4y ago
When societies will intervene to stop suicide while simultaneously allowing for government sanctioned assisted suicide, it means that the morality or "rightness" of an act is only now defined by whether the proper paperwork was filled out.
- polygamous_bat 4y ago
  > ... it means that the morality or "rightness" of an act is only now defined by whether the proper paperwork was filled out. I do not understand your point. How is that any different than, say, driving my car down the highway? The same act can be fine if I have a driving license and not fine if I do not.
- kbenson 4y ago
  Sometimes, paperwork is there to force some other condition to have been met, such as time and review and notification of others. So, it it more "right" to make people that want to commit suicide take a bit of time to consider whether that's actually the decision they want, and not something being influenced by a temporary situation, whether external or internal (such as a hormone imbalance that ebbs and flows)? I think yes, generally, even if edge cases exist.
- fellowniusmonk 4y ago
  It's moral to have an unsubscribe button, it isn't moral to require me to fax in an unsubscribe form after signing up with one click. It's moral to ensure charges go before a court quickly, it's immoral to allow a person to languish in jail for decades without trial. Time and effort are a components of everything including morality. To dismiss time and effort as trite or irrelevant in nearly any situation seems abusurd.
- itishappy 4y ago
  I don't think those are fundamentally equivalent categories. Assisted suicide is (to my knowledge) aimed at end of life patients with terminal outlooks. People who have little chance of improving their outcome. Self inflicted suicide is a much broader category including bullied high schoolers and unlucky stock traders. People who's current situation might look grim but who could potentially change that situation. I won't comment on the morality of either, but there's more at play than just bureaucracy.
shanebellone 4y ago
Absolutely not. I believe there is a legal argument in favor of bodily autonomy which includes the right to death. "Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." Life is inextricably linked with death. If you have the right to live, you must also have the right to die. That belief is largely entrenched in our medical system too but stops short of doctor assisted suicide.
- hprotagonist 4y ago
  Does your right to die permit you to inflict trauma on others by, say, stepping in front of a train in a moment of crisis? Eating a 12 gauge and leaving your family to discover your meat splattered on the floor? etc. Am I allowed to stop that suicide? "Whatever affects one directly, affects all indirectly."
  - shanebellone 4y ago
    This is such a selfish perspective. What about their trauma, pain, and sorrow?
    - hprotagonist 4y ago
      It's the exact opposite of selfish; I am pointing out that yes, people are individuals, but people are also inextricably communal as well. Choosing to end your life, like any other choice we made, is not solely about _you_ because it does not solely affect _you_. "No man is an island entire of itself; every man / is a piece of the continent, a part of the main;"
      - shanebellone 4y ago
        Death is absolute. In no circumstance can you avoid its impact. Thus, your argument is predicated upon exerting control over another human in order to control the timing of your displeasure. Preferring a loved one to suffer, indefinitely, in order to spare your feelings... is the very definition of selfish.
guerrilla 4y ago
Absolutely not. The only possible justification for any of these authoritarian interventions is self-defense. Anything short of that is infringing on their autonomy over their body and not something you should be advocating for especially considering you could be in that exact situation. In addition, suicide is not necessarily irrational, so definitely not.
sashenka 4y ago

I have a relative who had to be taken to the hospital after scraping invisible mites out of their eyes with a razor blade. They asked them if she would like some antipsychotic medication and of course they said no. As a result, my question is, is it ever humane to not force treatment on the mentally ill

ajb 4y ago
Obviously it can be. See lobotomization and ECT just for starters (yes, I know ECT is supposed to be better now, don't really buy it)
- gman2093 4y ago
  With respect, your statement about ECT is not aligned with reality. ECT is evidence-based and effective, with side effects that are less pronounced in many cases than drug-based therapies. It is approved for use in pregnant patients in the USA. One Flew over the Cuckoos Nest is not peer-reviewed.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
  - generalizations 4y ago
    > There’s a risk of memory loss. Most people who undergo ECT have temporary memory loss and confusion. Most people's confusion clears up quickly, and memory loss usually goes away entirely within a few months. However, some people do have permanent memory problems. Using the right-unilateral electrode placement and shortening the electrical current duration can reduce the risk of this happening. https://my.clevelandclinic.org/health/treatments/9302-ect-electroconvulsive-therapy https://my.clevelandclinic.org/health/treatments/9302-ect-el...
  - cwillu 4y ago
    You agree to receive treatment, or you will not be released, and they get a court order rubber-stamped to say they can give you treatment without your consent. I don't remember what happened after. ECT has that effect.
  - ajb 4y ago
    Not aligned with current consensus, perhaps. But before you equate that to "reality", recall that the profession once had consensus about lobotomy. Evidence in psychological science is much more superficial than in, say, physics. I don't doubt that what you say is reflected in the literature, but I do doubt that it reflects the lived reality of those so treated.
raverbashing 4y ago
You are asking the right questions A lot of homelessness is due to different mental illnesses (not discounting the societal issues, and of course the drugs then make it worse) I really feel society sucks at dealing with the action/inaction assymetries
- brodouevencode 4y ago
  Most homeless is due to mental illness. Almost always men with addiction issues. Many veterans suffering from PTSD. It's rarely the "single mother of two that lost her job at the plant" trope.
  - mattzito 4y ago
    I think a better way to frame it is "most _chronically_ homeless is due to mental illness". However, most homeless people are not chronically homeless, and are homeless for <6 months. Those are the single mother of two who lost their job at the plant examples - or left an abusive relationship and is living in their car, or underemployed as a security guard and sleeping in a sheleter, etc. Unfortunately, and equally sad, many of these folks work, send their kids to school, and struggle to get themselves into a stable long-term situation.
    - trynewideas 4y ago
      HUD data, for the US at least:[1] - 582,484 total homeless - 138,361 chronically homeless - 122,888 total homeless reporting severe mental illness - 48,373 total homeless victims of domestic violence - 33,129 total homeless veterans VA count of veteran homelessness was down 10% or more YoY in 2021 and 2022, and down 55% since 2010.[2] Veterans comprise about 10% of the total US population and 5.6% of the homeless population. Among veterans, PTSD was less of a risk factor than psychotic disorders, an equal factor to other mental health disorders, and mental illness in general was less of a risk factor than money mismanagement and could be mitigated by VA services, especially disability compensation.[3] 1: https://files.hudexchange.info/reports/published/CoC_PopSub_NatlTerrDC_2022.pdf https://files.hudexchange.info/reports/published/CoC_PopSub_... 2: https://www.va.gov/homeless/pit_count.asp https://www.va.gov/homeless/pit_count.asp 3: https://doi.org/10.1093/epirev/mxu004 https://doi.org/10.1093/epirev/mxu004

andrewclunn 4y ago

When societies will intervene to stop suicide while simultaneously allowing for government sanctioned assisted suicide, it means that the morality or "rightness" of an act is only now defined by whether the proper paperwork was filled out.

polygamous_bat 4y ago
> ... it means that the morality or "rightness" of an act is only now defined by whether the proper paperwork was filled out. I do not understand your point. How is that any different than, say, driving my car down the highway? The same act can be fine if I have a driving license and not fine if I do not.
kbenson 4y ago
Sometimes, paperwork is there to force some other condition to have been met, such as time and review and notification of others. So, it it more "right" to make people that want to commit suicide take a bit of time to consider whether that's actually the decision they want, and not something being influenced by a temporary situation, whether external or internal (such as a hormone imbalance that ebbs and flows)? I think yes, generally, even if edge cases exist.
fellowniusmonk 4y ago
It's moral to have an unsubscribe button, it isn't moral to require me to fax in an unsubscribe form after signing up with one click. It's moral to ensure charges go before a court quickly, it's immoral to allow a person to languish in jail for decades without trial. Time and effort are a components of everything including morality. To dismiss time and effort as trite or irrelevant in nearly any situation seems abusurd.
itishappy 4y ago
I don't think those are fundamentally equivalent categories. Assisted suicide is (to my knowledge) aimed at end of life patients with terminal outlooks. People who have little chance of improving their outcome. Self inflicted suicide is a much broader category including bullied high schoolers and unlucky stock traders. People who's current situation might look grim but who could potentially change that situation. I won't comment on the morality of either, but there's more at play than just bureaucracy.

shanebellone 4y ago

Absolutely not. I believe there is a legal argument in favor of bodily autonomy which includes the right to death. "Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." Life is inextricably linked with death. If you have the right to live, you must also have the right to die. That belief is largely entrenched in our medical system too but stops short of doctor assisted suicide.

hprotagonist 4y ago
Does your right to die permit you to inflict trauma on others by, say, stepping in front of a train in a moment of crisis? Eating a 12 gauge and leaving your family to discover your meat splattered on the floor? etc. Am I allowed to stop that suicide? "Whatever affects one directly, affects all indirectly."
- shanebellone 4y ago
  This is such a selfish perspective. What about their trauma, pain, and sorrow?
  - hprotagonist 4y ago
    It's the exact opposite of selfish; I am pointing out that yes, people are individuals, but people are also inextricably communal as well. Choosing to end your life, like any other choice we made, is not solely about _you_ because it does not solely affect _you_. "No man is an island entire of itself; every man / is a piece of the continent, a part of the main;"
    - shanebellone 4y ago
      Death is absolute. In no circumstance can you avoid its impact. Thus, your argument is predicated upon exerting control over another human in order to control the timing of your displeasure. Preferring a loved one to suffer, indefinitely, in order to spare your feelings... is the very definition of selfish.

guerrilla 4y ago

Absolutely not. The only possible justification for any of these authoritarian interventions is self-defense. Anything short of that is infringing on their autonomy over their body and not something you should be advocating for especially considering you could be in that exact situation. In addition, suicide is not necessarily irrational, so definitely not.

sashenka 4y ago