3 ms·

People have made arguments against abuse in vulnerable populations, which I think is an important argument. But one thing that I really haven't seen explored, a

People have made arguments against abuse in vulnerable populations, which I think is an important argument. But one thing that I really haven't seen explored, and specifically where this applies to suicidal ideation, is the extent to which this is considered a 'condition' or not. The human body / brain has extremely powerful mechanisms for ensuring certain 'drives' that are essential for the survival and propagation as a species. This is what is biologically 'normal' / 'healthy'. Whether we agree with these drives or not philosophically is another thing. But if someone is anorexic, we recognise that their drive for hunger has been compromised, and make sure to restore it. We don't go "oh it's ok, their desire not to eat is voluntary". Psychiatric diseases are complex. To just assume "will" can never be compromised in disease is naive. And equally more naive is to assume that there is no action that one could do to restore the diseased processes such that that will would be reversed. So the fact that when it comes to suicidal ideation we are less prone to say "this is a disease which circumvents the brain's normal processes that create the imperative urge to survive, leaving one suicidal", and we just go "wouldn't it be nice if they could end their life peacefully without consequences" is bizzare. Note that in the situation where a degree of suicidality is not the main issue, and we're talking about palliation by physicians, current laws and practices absolutely do not prevent a doctor from taking actions that are intended to palliate rather than prolong a life of suffering. So the euthanasia bill isn't really about that. It's about supporting people who actively want to die, by providing "assistance". Discussing whether their circumstances warrant them wanting to die is a red herring, no matter how dire those circumstances may be.

eddd-ddde 2y ago
A very interesting point. But would you say the same about having offspring? If one can decide to not exercise their reproductive rights peacefully, why can't someone exercise the rights over their own death. Do you want to "cure" people that don't want to have kids? What constitutes a "normal" drive.
- tpoacher 2y ago
  That's a fair point. And in a sense, the analogous law there is the right to medically-assisted sterilisation, which also exists (albeit, carrying a somewhat lesser impact in terms of finality). I don't necessarily think a discussion down that line is entirely without merit, and one could of course "delve" into philosophy of benefits to society vs rights of the individual vs sanctity of life etc ... but this is not the main point I was making here. For me the distinction is less about reproduction-aversion versus suicidality needing to be forcefully "cured" or not (or one of sanctity of life, for that matter), but more about one of capacity in the case of exercising reproductive rights as compared to exercising suicidal rights. At the risk of a bad analogy, the former is more like wanting a questionable piercing that others may think is a bad decision. Yes you may well also regret it as a bad decision eventually, but if you have capacity in your decision at the time, then there is little reason to stop you from exercising your right to self-mutilation if this is what you want. In which case, yes, if someone was claiming, either that "skin is sacred", or using circular logic that the very fact you want a mutilation proves you're sick and you need to be 'cured' of it, I would have had the same response as you. Whereas there are good reasons there are lots of legal protections for proving or disproving capacity when dealing with people with dementia signing away their will to a total stranger, for instance. Yes, it's possible that the demented person still has enough cognitive capacity to sign away their will to a total stranger, despite the fact that cognitive capacity is the very thing that is compromised. And so, similarly, yes it's possible that the suicidal person still has enough capacity to judge the extent to which they wish to live, even though their ability to wish to live is the very thing that has been compromised. But I would be sceptical, and would want to see some guardrails before providing commercial services to help demented people exercise their peaceful right to sign away their wills. And we have enough medical knowledge currently to know that, capacity-wise, suicidality is much more like dementia in this context, than it is like wanting a bad piercing or deciding on reproductive rights. Which is why it's rather frustrating to watch, and a very dangerous line to walk, when legislating such a provision away purely on the basis of a debate focusing on "personal rights vs sanctity of life", without having that discussion about capacity and obligations to attempt to restore it / protect it as the first priority.
dns_snek 2y ago
> So the fact that when it comes to suicidal ideation we are less prone to say "this is a disease which circumvents the brain's normal processes that create the imperative urge to survive, leaving one suicidal", and we just go "wouldn't it be nice if they could end their life peacefully without consequences" is bizzare. Those aren't conflicting beliefs. I think everyone would agree that suicidal ideation is a result of some form of abnormal state of mind, it doesn't need to be restated, but the fact is that we don't have cures. What if they've already received psychiatric care and they're still suicidal? I agree that we should provide people with the best care that we can in order to treat the root cause but ultimately it's up to them to decide what they want to do with their own life, whether it be treatment or ending it in a humane way.

eddd-ddde 2y ago

A very interesting point. But would you say the same about having offspring? If one can decide to not exercise their reproductive rights peacefully, why can't someone exercise the rights over their own death. Do you want to "cure" people that don't want to have kids? What constitutes a "normal" drive.

tpoacher 2y ago
That's a fair point. And in a sense, the analogous law there is the right to medically-assisted sterilisation, which also exists (albeit, carrying a somewhat lesser impact in terms of finality). I don't necessarily think a discussion down that line is entirely without merit, and one could of course "delve" into philosophy of benefits to society vs rights of the individual vs sanctity of life etc ... but this is not the main point I was making here. For me the distinction is less about reproduction-aversion versus suicidality needing to be forcefully "cured" or not (or one of sanctity of life, for that matter), but more about one of capacity in the case of exercising reproductive rights as compared to exercising suicidal rights. At the risk of a bad analogy, the former is more like wanting a questionable piercing that others may think is a bad decision. Yes you may well also regret it as a bad decision eventually, but if you have capacity in your decision at the time, then there is little reason to stop you from exercising your right to self-mutilation if this is what you want. In which case, yes, if someone was claiming, either that "skin is sacred", or using circular logic that the very fact you want a mutilation proves you're sick and you need to be 'cured' of it, I would have had the same response as you. Whereas there are good reasons there are lots of legal protections for proving or disproving capacity when dealing with people with dementia signing away their will to a total stranger, for instance. Yes, it's possible that the demented person still has enough cognitive capacity to sign away their will to a total stranger, despite the fact that cognitive capacity is the very thing that is compromised. And so, similarly, yes it's possible that the suicidal person still has enough capacity to judge the extent to which they wish to live, even though their ability to wish to live is the very thing that has been compromised. But I would be sceptical, and would want to see some guardrails before providing commercial services to help demented people exercise their peaceful right to sign away their wills. And we have enough medical knowledge currently to know that, capacity-wise, suicidality is much more like dementia in this context, than it is like wanting a bad piercing or deciding on reproductive rights. Which is why it's rather frustrating to watch, and a very dangerous line to walk, when legislating such a provision away purely on the basis of a debate focusing on "personal rights vs sanctity of life", without having that discussion about capacity and obligations to attempt to restore it / protect it as the first priority.

dns_snek 2y ago

> So the fact that when it comes to suicidal ideation we are less prone to say "this is a disease which circumvents the brain's normal processes that create the imperative urge to survive, leaving one suicidal", and we just go "wouldn't it be nice if they could end their life peacefully without consequences" is bizzare. Those aren't conflicting beliefs. I think everyone would agree that suicidal ideation is a result of some form of abnormal state of mind, it doesn't need to be restated, but the fact is that we don't have cures. What if they've already received psychiatric care and they're still suicidal? I agree that we should provide people with the best care that we can in order to treat the root cause but ultimately it's up to them to decide what they want to do with their own life, whether it be treatment or ending it in a humane way.