|
Zaradis posted:That isn't an assumption, it's self-evident in that we make choices and could have chosen differently had we chosen to do so. Yes, most of the universe is a deterministic, closed system. However, there are mountains of evidence that human consciousness is a separate emergent property of the configuration of the atoms of the brain. This means that most of the universe, including our bodies, is a deterministic machine; but consciousness is a transcendence within that machine which produces legitimate freedom of choice. Nah. I think you're confusing some underlying grammatical and semantic structures with what they're signifying. If we're namedropping philosophers I'm gonna prescribe you some Wittgenstein's Philosophical Inquiries on why language is a particularly inadequate tool for metaphysical speculation, and then with that huge grain of salt you'd probably really enjoy some of Whitehead's Process and Reality as he attempts to expand language's metaphysical capabilities in crazy directions. If Whitehead's right, the good news for you is that creative freedom is the fundamental underlying principal of the universe. The bad news for you is that in his conceptual system absolutely everything in the universe has some proportional degree of it, from the quantum foam in a vacuum (almost none), to atomic particles (a bit more), to rocks (more, presumably pretty loving slow) to prokaryotes (substantially more freedom) etc etc all the way up to plants and mammals and primates and whatnot, but there's still no special separate transcendent human spirit. 'Consciousness' isn't separate from anything - subjective experience is always of something else, and it's certainly not unique to humans (although our particular kind of subjective experience is certainly uniquely human). To speak of 'consciousness' as something separate from the human body or the world at large is basically a grammatical accident. English is 'thingifying' what can only be a verb. It might make more sense to say that 'consciousness' is an abstract process generated by and between the interaction of subject (in this case your brain) and object (the Something Awful forums!). And if it can be described in mechanistic materialist terms, Occam's Razor is going straight up your rear end as soon as you try going metaphysical. "Could have chosen differently" is meaningless verbiage. The past is gone. There are no takebacksies or quickloads. You do not, you can not know that you "could have chosen differently" any more than you can consider every possible piece of relevant information before making a choice. You do the best with whatever incomplete information you have and then loving hail mary that poo poo like everyone else. Most of the time you won't even know exactly why or how or even when you made a choice, and when you ruminate on it later you're projecting on an incomplete, fading memory of your past experience with the benefit of hindsight - information you did not have at the time of the decision. Without a time machine, the most you can say is something like 'if I encounter a similar choice in the future maybe I can explore alternatives'. We also really have no idea if the universe is deterministic or not. It certainly may have seemed that way from the Newtonian perspective but Newton's conceptual apparatus was very much a product of his time and everything at the quantum level shits all over his head. I'm partial to the idea that the universe is 'loosely deterministic' in a way that leaves room for Whiteheadian choice, but there's a lot to be said for 'chaos reigns' too. It's all speculation until a falsifiable synthesis of quantum mechanics and general relativity exists. Whatever choice is, it is always conditioned by what may as well be an infinity of factors - but those conditions are what make any kind of choice-like phenomena possible in the first place. e: for categorization - iirc Heidegger is usually considered more of a branch off of Husserl's phenomenological approach to subjective experience, which certainly overlaps with existentialist inquiry in some ways but also comes from its own historical tradition. emTme3 fucked around with this message at 13:48 on May 25, 2015 |
#
?
May 25, 2015 10:57
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 9, 2024 23:09 |
|
|
Why are folks so unwilling to discuss PAS as it actually happens in the real world?
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2015 16:31
|
|
Solkanar512 posted:Why are folks so unwilling to discuss PAS as it actually happens in the real world? They're not, it's just that most people ITT have no problem with it so there isn't much left to argue about, which is why this degenerated in to an argument about whether mentally ill people should be entitled to commit suicide.
|
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2015 16:32
|
|
|
Solkanar512 posted:Why are folks so unwilling to discuss PAS as it actually happens in the real world? Because it's pretty uncontroversial among decent people. The only real ethical concern is your kids talking you into suicide so you don't spend down your inheritance in a nursing home. Which is more of a concern with the health care system in America than it is with euthanasia.
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2015 17:06
|
|
SedanChair posted:The only real ethical concern is your kids talking you into suicide so you don't spend down your inheritance in a nursing home. Particularly since this is already a problem when elderly people get dotty in terms of people making demented old people sign instruments they don't understand depriving them of property before they're dead.
|
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2015 17:13
|
|
|
Disinterested posted:They're not, it's just that most people ITT have no problem with it so there isn't much left to argue about, which is why this degenerated in to an argument about whether mentally ill people should be entitled to commit suicide. Then the topic probably doesn't deserve a thread on its own and would be better of being reborn as the Bioethics and Agency megathread discussing which role the government is allowed to play with regards to sex change surgery, circumcision, abortion, eugenics and euthanasia. 
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2015 17:14
|
|
|
I understand PAS and Euthanasia for someone with a fatal incurable illness like cancer. However, earlier in the thread people were saying someone without a fatal illness should be able to seek assisted suicide assuming they jump through the right hoops. Now I'm pretty sure its generally accepted that a desire to die without extenuating circumstances is a sign of mental illness. So isn't it kinda, eugenicy, to let people with mental illnesses kill themselves?
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2015 01:09
|
|
|
Disinterested posted:Particularly since this is already a problem when elderly people get dotty in terms of people making demented old people sign instruments they don't understand depriving them of property before they're dead. I know people who, due to direct experience with relatives of how awful and dehumanizing this disease can be, have outright stated that they would prefer to be put down than left to go through dementia to its conclusion. It not being considered a terminal illness, they would not qualify under 'right to die' laws, and assistance would be illegal even if they were too infirm to do it themselves. On the other hand, if it were changed to 'right to die for any consenting reason', a person had signed an advance health care directive, then suffered from a rapidly progressing dementia and was found unable to consent, whose consent would be required in order to proceed? Could their agent/attorney-in-fact decide that they should die even if the patient (in their now unable to consent state) maintained that they did not want to? unwantedplatypus posted:I understand PAS and Euthanasia for someone with a fatal incurable illness like cancer. However, earlier in the thread people were saying someone without a fatal illness should be able to seek assisted suicide assuming they jump through the right hoops. Now I'm pretty sure its generally accepted that a desire to die without extenuating circumstances is a sign of mental illness. So isn't it kinda, eugenicy, to let people with mental illnesses kill themselves? (Which that was a part of the reason that those who deliberately sought out non-reproductive sex (sodomy) were 'generally accepted' to be mentally ill not too long ago. "They need treating, not being allowed to live their existence where they cannot conventionally procreate.") There are arguments against assisted suicide on demand, but I can't really see a eugenics/selective breeding one holding up.
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2015 01:38
|
|
|
Guavanaut posted:You could use a very similar 'eugenicy' argument there for someone not wanting to reproduce, granting a person without children a vasectomy or tubal ligation could also be described as 'eugenicy', but they're usually allowed to go ahead with it after jumping through a few hoops. If you're arguing from a purely genetic basis, then forgoing reproduction is as much a sign of mental illness. Fair point. I meant mainly that it doesn't seem like you should let someone who isn't of their right mind kill themselves. Now of course that leads into the argument of whether or not someone can want to pursue suicide and be of sound mind. I would argue no (except, of course, in cases of terminal illness) because someone of a healthy mind would pursue happiness rather than annihilation.
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2015 01:52
|
|
|
unwantedplatypus posted:Fair point. I meant mainly that it doesn't seem like you should let someone who isn't of their right mind kill themselves. Now of course that leads into the argument of whether or not someone can want to pursue suicide and be of sound mind. I would argue no (except, of course, in cases of terminal illness) because someone of a healthy mind would pursue happiness rather than annihilation. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Locked-in_syndrome I would argue absolutely yes.
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2015 02:09
|
|
|
The issue I take with that view is that it makes a pathological pursuit of life extension a requirement of mental health. Which only makes sense if you assume that more life is always good and we have a moral obligation to pursue it. Which I would disagree with, as would society in general.
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2015 02:10
|
|
|
Randler posted:Then the topic probably doesn't deserve a thread on its own and would be better of being reborn as the Bioethics and Agency megathread discussing which role the government is allowed to play with regards to sex change surgery, circumcision, abortion, eugenics and euthanasia. To return to that topic, I don't believe it's right to deny someone mercy because of the wider social context. I'm not against consequentialism for the sake of social progress or a better society, in fact I'm usually totally behind it. But this seems different. Even if not allowing euthanasia may be the better, social decision in the context of a society that tries desperately to throw away the lives of anyone without money, to deny a terminal patient in pain the right to die with dignity seems like a bridge too far.
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2015 02:42
|
|
|
unwantedplatypus posted:I understand PAS and Euthanasia for someone with a fatal incurable illness like cancer. However, earlier in the thread people were saying someone without a fatal illness should be able to seek assisted suicide assuming they jump through the right hoops. Now I'm pretty sure its generally accepted that a desire to die without extenuating circumstances is a sign of mental illness. So isn't it kinda, eugenicy, to let people with mental illnesses kill themselves? Many mental illnesses can be treated, but not cured. Off he meds, You are going to feel like poo poo no matter what if you are bipolar.
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2015 05:20
|
|
|
Job Truniht posted:Many mental illnesses can be treated, but not cured. Off he meds, You are going to feel like poo poo no matter what if you are bipolar. Not to mention the people whose mental illnesses resist treatment entirely. This conversation has been presuming that anyone wanting to die is having a temporary lapse in judgment due to mental illness, and that we should protect these people from their misfiring synapses. Once we get that person medicated and treated, he or she will be better, and glad to be alive. What if that person can't be helped? What if the condition is permanent and not temporary at all? Doesn't that person have the right to choose not to suffer through the next several decades? Ogmius815, I'm not as familiar with palliative care as I'd like to be, but aren't there situations where not much can be done? My grandmother had Alzheimer's, and the last several months were especially brutal -- she was nonverbal, unresponsive, essentially an empty shell. But dementia patients can last for years in that state. Someone facing that sort of future deserves the right to opt out.
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2015 13:48
|
|
|
Bel Shazar posted:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Locked-in_syndrome In this case, someone with the disease can't meaningfully interact with the outside world. They cannot physically live life. So yes, if someone who had this condition wanted to end their life, they should be able to (also the Wikipedia article says that most people who have this condition die within months, with recovery being rare. So you can group it in with "terminal illness".) OwlFancier posted:The issue I take with that view is that it makes a pathological pursuit of life extension a requirement of mental health. There's a difference between pursuit of life extension and pursuit of life termination. The former implies not letting yourself die whereas the latter is actively seeking your own death. I would say stopping the pursuit of life termination is a requirement of mental health. Job Truniht posted:Many mental illnesses can be treated, but not cured. Off he meds, You are going to feel like poo poo no matter what if you are bipolar. In this example, we have meds. (I assume) plenty of bipolar people are content with their lives. Therefore a bipolar person can find happiness in their life. Yes it sucks if you get off your meds somehow but suicide isn't the only choice, therefore it shouldn't be a valid choice. When you are on your meds you can live a decent life.
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2015 14:00
|
|
|
unwantedplatypus posted:There's a difference between pursuit of life extension and pursuit of life termination. The former implies not letting yourself die whereas the latter is actively seeking your own death. I would say stopping the pursuit of life termination is a requirement of mental health. That's an odd distinction to draw, because what you're essentially arguing is that there is nothing wrong with either state, but there is something wrong with actively choosing one of them. Either death is to be avoided inherently, or it is not. If it is not, then choosing it is not insane. Unless you're trying to appeal to nature, there isn't a meaningful distinction to be drawn between allowing yourself to die and choosing to die. One is not better simply because it is done passively, capitalizing on an external influence. It doesn't become acceptable to die only at the point when you can do it without actively participating in it.
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2015 14:56
|
|
|
Saying that the desire to keep living is a requirement for mental health cannot be stated axiomatically. It seems like one of the major arguments in this thread is the "yes it is - no it isnt" pertaining to that concept. Ultimately the desire to keep going is an evolutionary advantage for things that live - not some universal truth. So is the desire to reproduce, but we dont (most of us anyway) say people are mentally unhealthy if they dont want kids or sex. I think its perfectly possible for an otherwise healthy person to make a reasoned argument they want to die. Additionally - it seems most people are fine with assisted suicide in people that are terminal. Well, were all terminal, just on different time scales. I have a hard time coming up with arguments distinguishing the two that dont fall back on 'having so much life left' and having the opportunity to find enjoyment and fulfillment. And those are really loving arbitrary things to start basing arguments around. Depression, as I understand it anyway, can be a chronic condition that people struggle with all their lives. Living may be very miserable for them in the same way it is for cancer patients. The argument against them killing themselves seems to be that we dont believe they are perceiving things accurately, which may very well be the case. And they may be able to work through it with treatment and et cetera. What of those who cant. Is their suffering somehow less because it isnt 'real' by our definition. Just to be clear I am totally for providing more and better help for people, and putting sufficient checks in place to avoid rash decisions. Suicide is obviously a choice that cannot be unmade.
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2015 23:42
|
|
|
Acelerion posted:Saying that the desire to keep living is a requirement for mental health cannot be stated axiomatically. It seems like one of the major arguments in this thread is the "yes it is - no it isnt" pertaining to that concept. Preach.
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2015 23:47
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:That's an odd distinction to draw, because what you're essentially arguing is that there is nothing wrong with either state, but there is something wrong with actively choosing one of them. Death is, generally, to be inherently avoided, though that can be waived in specific cases. What I mean by there being a difference between allowing yourself to die and choosing to die is this, wanting to die or accepting that death may be your only chance for improvement. Acelerion posted:Saying that the desire to keep living is a requirement for mental health cannot be stated axiomatically. It seems like one of the major arguments in this thread is the "yes it is - no it isnt" pertaining to that concept. Well, I imagine the difference between you and someone with a terminal illness is the pain and suffering that comes from having a terminal disease, combined with the complete lack of any hope of treatment. As for people with depression, their suffering is real, but I'd question if anybody with depression truly cannot be helped? If someone is so depressed that they literally cannot live, then they'll probably kill themselves anyway. As for the people who can be helped, how effective are the safeguards in deterring people who can be helped from killing themselves(this isn't rhetorical, I'm honestly curious)?
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2015 03:20
|
|
|
Acelerion posted:Saying that the desire to keep living is a requirement for mental health cannot be stated axiomatically. It seems like one of the major arguments in this thread is the "yes it is - no it isnt" pertaining to that concept. You can't make judgement like mentally ill without a base set of assumptions about human behavior and reason alone isn't there to help you out. In a purely abstract sense for example there is no basis to judge a serial killer to be mentally ill without deciding beforehand that humans should value the lives of other humans. It's not a leap to extend this to people's value of their own life.
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2015 03:55
|
|
|
asdf32 posted:You can't make judgement like mentally ill without a base set of assumptions about human behavior and reason alone isn't there to help you out. In a purely abstract sense for example there is no basis to judge a serial killer to be mentally ill without deciding beforehand that humans should value the lives of other humans. It's not a leap to extend this to people's value of their own life. Except we make that exception already in a great many ways. Many things are acceptable to do to yourself but not to others. The reason you don't kill people is because it is generally (accurately) assumed the other person does not give consent for you to do so. The entire subject of assisted suicide requires you to cede that consent is important. Not the actual act of killing someone. People should value the autonomy of other humans, theft, rape, and murder are wrong, but charity, sex, and assisted suicide are not. The operative difference is that the person must consent, because the moral principle is that people should have autonomy over their life as much as possible. Bodily autonomy is probably the most fundamental part of this, in that a person should have control over their own body, which informs almost all our social rules. A person is considered to deserve freedom over what they eat, whether they seek treatment for sickness, whether they engage in body modification, and who they are intimate with. It is the moral basis for the human rights to healthcare, food, and shelter, we should be able to choose to keep our bodies as we wish to, and not be sick, hungry, or cold unless we want to be. But that does not extend as far as death?
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2015 04:56
|
|
|
Guavanaut posted:Dementia is an interesting case when it comes to this, because it's not normally considered a terminal illness, and because it can cause people to be forcibly stripped of their ability to consent; a court can say that they can no longer sign a document or have sex with their partner or make decisions relating to their own care, etc. This is the role of a living will. The idea is that you decide these things for yourself when you are able to consent and also decide who you trust to give consent on your behalf when you are unable to. The problem is that right now the state will, depending on what that document says, poo poo all over it to try to prolong your life even if it is clearly against your wishes. We have Do Not Resuscitate orders that already exist right now. We make people who do not want resuscitation decide before-hand because, obviously, they would logically not be in a state that would allow them to consent to not being resuscitated. Physician-assisted suicide or euthanasia can function as extensions to the already-existing DNR orders or in a separate form as a living will. To pretend, as some of the posters in this thread are doing, that we don't already deal with this exact issue all the time in our medical system is really crazy. We do! People are fully capable of giving consent to procedures or lack of procedures in advance, and we already have legal structures in place to do it.
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2015 05:13
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:Except we make that exception already in a great many ways. Many things are acceptable to do to yourself but not to others. Preach. Be careful with the "a" word though. Lots of people in this thread don't like the idea that other people are autonomous... (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2015 06:53
|
|
|
It's often used by people who argue for greater freedom for them at the expense of everybody else, so it's an understandable aversion. But securing greater human autonomy, not greater personal autonomy is an extremely sound basis for a moral system.
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2015 07:38
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:It's often used by people who argue for greater freedom for them at the expense of everybody else, so it's an understandable aversion. I certainly agree with you. But the overall autonomy of humanity can only become greater through greater autonomy of the individuals who make up humanity.
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2015 16:23
|
|
|
Ghost of Reagan Past posted:First, autonomy is irrelevant to the question of whether doctors should be able to prescribe drugs to permit you to end your life. At least, your autonomy is irrelevant. Even if you have a farcical view that puts individual autonomy at the center (and not, say, a concept like Pettit and Smith's orthonomy, or well-being, or eudaimonia), doctors have autonomy, and their autonomy is not in service of yours. Codes of medical ethics basically prohibit doctors from offering you suicide drugs, and you might think this problematic, but that's the reality. Sorry, you can't kill yourself within the domain of medicine. But doctors are under no obligation to prescribe you suicide drugs just because you are a free autonomous agent and want them. I'd say it conflicts with the aims of medicine, but that's irrelevant, since they have autonomy and so aren't infringing on your autonomy by not prescribing you suicide drugs. Whoops, turns out your cherished autonomy doesn't guarantee a right to medical suicide. I'm pretty sure no one here (or anywhere) is arguing for doctors to be forced to prescribe death when they're not comfortable with it. Doctors have always had the right to refuse to perform any treatment they believe not to be in their patients' best interests. And the whole point of this debate is whether codes of medical ethics should absolutely prohibit assisted suicide. The "do no harm" thing has always been interpreted to allow for causing harm to prevent a greater harm (say, amputating a gangrenous limb, or prescribing lifesaving drugs with nasty side effects). People are simply trying to make the case that death can, under certain conditions, constitute a lesser harm than continuing to live.
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2015 02:09
|
|
|
Cockmaster posted:The "do no harm" thing has always been interpreted to allow for causing harm to prevent a greater harm (say, amputating a gangrenous limb, or prescribing lifesaving drugs with nasty side effects). People are simply trying to make the case that death can, under certain conditions, constitute a lesser harm than continuing to live. The example of the gangrenous limb is not in any way "causing harm," any more than removing the appendix of a patient with appendicitis. Removal of body parts that endanger the patient is a pretty key treatment option. Your second case of "lifesaving drugs with nasty side effects" is the one that's at issue here. The case that right-to-die proponents are making is that the prolonging of life solely for the sake of prolonging life, without bothering with the consent of the patient, IS doing harm and could be interpreted as unethical. The problem the anti side is having in articulating their argument is that most of their arguments rely on the premise that "death is bad," as self-evident. It is not self-evident that it is true, and they need to explain their logic in believing that it is true. "Death is bad," can not be a starting premise to argue from. Physician-assisted suicide, if properly regulated, does not in any way violate the "first do no harm" precept. On the contrary, not allowing physician-assisted suicide actually leads to harm for patients.
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2015 03:04
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:Except we make that exception already in a great many ways. Many things are acceptable to do to yourself but not to others. No you drifted off the point. Consent or not consent has to do with other people's freedom but has nothing to do with mental illness. The question is whether you determine that somone who serially kills other humans is mentally ill, or whether the ranting lunatic in the street is mentally ill or whether you determine that somone who is suicidal is mentally ill. This has nothing to do with whether we might punish people to enforce some socially beneficial behavior or not. The point is that you can't judge any of those people to be mentally ill unless you bring pre-determined expectations into the equation. The expectation that people should further their own interests (I.E. not rant like a lunatic on the street) is a basic one of which self preservation is a major component.
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2015 03:24
|
|
|
asdf32 posted:No you drifted off the point. Consent or not consent has to do with other people's freedom but has nothing to do with mental illness. The question is whether you determine that somone who serially kills other humans is mentally ill, or whether the ranting lunatic in the street is mentally ill or whether you determine that somone who is suicidal is mentally ill. Then all that does is render a mental illness diagnosis less meaningful. It should not exist for the purpose of denying people the freedom to act in a way that does not harm others. Unless we want to put homosexuality back in the DSM. Self centeredness is not a requirement for individual wellbeing nor social wellbeing. Mental illness diagnoses should be used to further the interests of the diagnosed, and nothing more, they are meaningless otherwise. OwlFancier fucked around with this message at 03:37 on May 28, 2015 |
|
#
?
May 28, 2015 03:32
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:Then all that does is render a mental illness diagnosis less meaningful. It should not exist for the purpose of denying people the freedom to act in a way that does not harm others. Unless we want to put homosexuality back in the DSM. Please. Are you a libertarian? I'm not saying we need to keep people's hearts pumping at all costs, far from it, but pretending we can navigate this course with reason alone is incredibly naive. Emphasizing autonomy and free will is admirable. It's not the whole picture. Do you consider anything to qualify as mental illness? Why?
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2015 03:39
|
|
|
No, because libertarians are idiots with no understanding of the concept of freedom, they want anarchy, political freedom and are willing to give up the material freedom of everyone else on the planet to do so. Mental illness is (or should be) a term to describe patterns of thought which are detrimental to the health and happiness of an individual, as determined by the individual. It should not be an absolute standard to which everybody is held, what causes distress for some may not do so for others, what some desire treatment for, others may not. Keeping a track of known patterns of detrimental thought is useful for helping those who want treatment for their condition, but it should not be used as a description of the objective ideal human, and diagnoses should not be used to take away the right to self determination of others.
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2015 03:47
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:No, because libertarians are idiots with no understanding of the concept of freedom, they want anarchy, political freedom and are willing to give up the material freedom of everyone else on the planet to do so. Libertarians have a definition and are irrationally ridgid in applying it. So you still have no basis for judging mental illness so long as somone claims they like their imaginary friend or killing other humans. You need better than this and to do that you need to be willing to make some judgments some of the time.
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2015 04:14
|
|
|
No you don't, if someone is unhappy with their life and comes to you for treatment, diagnose their problem and treat it. If they don't, let them get on with it. In the event they are a danger to others, you don't need a mental illness diagnosis to deal with that. If they aren't a danger to others, again, let them get on with it. It's their life.
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2015 04:22
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:No, because libertarians are idiots with no understanding of the concept of freedom, they want anarchy, political freedom and are willing to give up the material freedom of everyone else on the planet to do so. I don't really have a stake in this, by the way, other than that I think Washington and Oregon are on the right track.
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2015 04:25
|
|
|
Ravenfood posted:If someone finds their depression so onerous that they wish to kill themselves, aren't they, by your definition, determining that their patterns of thought are detrimental to their health and happiness? Possibly, but it's still up to them to decide how to deal with that, I think. Make available all the treatments and assistance you can, educate people that therapy and shelter is available if they want it, but it should still be up to the person to decide how they want to deal with it. If you have to force people not to kill themselves, it suggests more to me that you're doing a piss poor job of providing alternatives, and forcing people not to kill themselves is not going to do anything to improve that. I think the number of people who would choose death in the face of effective and available alternatives are few and far between.
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2015 04:28
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:No you don't, if someone is unhappy with their life and comes to you for treatment, diagnose their problem and treat it. And you just argued away your basis for determining their problem.
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2015 04:29
|
|
|
asdf32 posted:And you just argued away your basis for determining their problem. Why? If someone seeks treatment they should have it, if they don't believe they need treatment they don't get it? That's not that bizzare, it's how a lot of mental health services work where I live, for the most part. If you don't want treatment or don't want a specific thing treated you're left to get on with it. You're expected to decide for yourself what you want out of the facilities available.
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2015 04:31
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:Why? Then it's a catch 22 if your mental illness takes a form where you claim to not want treatment. And that's not uncommon at all.
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2015 04:37
|
|
|
asdf32 posted:Then it's a catch 22 if your mental illness takes a form where you claim to not want treatment. And that's not uncommon at all. And that's fine? If you don't want treatment don't have it? Again so long as you're not a danger to others I don't see the problem with that? If someone's functional enough to live without treatment for a condition they expressly wish not to be treated for, I'm not sure in that situation we should start sectioning people because we think we know better. That seems like it would do more harm than good.
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2015 04:39
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 9, 2024 23:09 |
|
|
OwlFancier posted:And that's fine? If you don't want treatment don't have it? Again so long as you're not a danger to others I don't see the problem with that?
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2015 04:53
|
|