4 ms·
I think this is an issue where formalities and details really matter quite a lot. Of course, it is not possible to absolutely prevent anyone from self-terminat
by tanseydavid 1y ago
I think this is an issue where formalities and details really matter quite a lot.
Of course, it is not possible to absolutely prevent anyone from self-terminating if they are sufficiently motivated but "self-termination" tends to have legal/criminal aspects attached to it.
Thought experiment: if it is decided that a person without a Terminal Illness indeed has a right to die "would this or would this not completely negate something like an involuntary 5150 hold based on possible self-harm?"
The more I think about it, the more this seems not just possible, but likely. I can only speak for myself but this seems like an unintended consequence.
- Bender 1y agoI think this is an easy thought experiment. If a person is considered a danger to others and not just themselves then involuntary hold is warranted given that the alternative often ends in termination by cop to protect the public. If they are only a danger to themselves then there would no longer be a need for involuntary hold if the only danger is truly just to themselves and in reality it isn't really even a danger given they consented to it whereas harm to the public can not be consented to. This is one of the rare cases where it is really their body, their choice.