Thank you jgnat, that's what I was trying to say.
This matter is not subjective, a mind far too deluded by mental disorders, drugs, or anything of the sort is something well recognized by the Psychology community. Sure there are some who simply want to end thier life for no reason, or "emos" who want attention, but there are true and real cases of people who are suicidal, and most have thier heads clouded with some disorder or hormones.
Think of it this way: Remember those "Kool-aid" drinkers who did mass suicide? Their minds were under the influence of a cult.
Should suicidal or self destructive people have free will?
by The Dragon 74 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
-
Liza
-
frankiespeakin
Jnat,
Similarly I fear for Schizophrenics and those with Bipolar Disorder. Both, in their lows, may end their life prematurely.
Getting to be broader minded, now just stretch it a little bit more. The person that lives a life is the only one who should diside seems the only fair answer, not you or me or the government although they do thier own fair share of killing.
I think we can encourage some one to not end his life, but in the end it still should fall on them to be the discider, if they think they had enough, and want out, who are we to say how much pain one has to endure in order to justify suicide?
-
cognizant dissident
I think if people have really decided to end their life and are serious about it, they rarely tell anyone, they just do it. Those who talk about it may be seriously planning, but by talking to others, no matter how vaguely, they are still reaching out for a smidgen of hope from their fellow man. If they are still talking then they are asking for intervention, in my opinion, no matter how resistant they may act. They are desperately saying, "give me a reason to live for I can no longer see one". So yes, it is incumbent on us all to intervene and help them to see a reason to live when they no longer can. It often takes time and medication. I am speaking as one who has suffered severe clinical depression myself and now see the preciousness of everyday of life and try to find some joy in each day no matter how painful some of those days are. I know what is like to be in the pit of black despair and I am greatful for those who reached into that pit and gave me a hand up into the light. Life is short enough, we don't have to hurry it along any faster.
Free will is relative. No one should have free will to harm others or themselves. However, even suicidal people need to be given as much dignity and free will as they can handle while they are recuperating. It is no excuse to take away another person's dignity as so many psyche wards have done to mental health patients in the past. Thank goodness those attitudes are slowly changing with better education of health professionals.
Psychotic disorders, such as schizophrenia, can also respond well to drug treatment and so intervention is warranted also.
Depression is extremely common in the elderly and those who are sick and needs to be treated as seriously as depression in the young and not just written off as a necessary part of aging.
Euthanisa is such a controversial topic and a big no no for health professionals to even mention. Those with a terminal illness who think they want to die with dignity with help from others better make their arrangements early while still in sound mind, because it would be very difficult for any health professional to help them. I wouldn't even attempt to say whether this is right or wrong, but I understand both sides of issue and wouldn't judge either. The decision must be the terminally ill person's not the "helper's". It would be better if they could do it with no helper as the person helping would be subject to prosecution for murder. Part of the problem is the lack of adequate pain control for the terminally ill. Things are getting better in that regard all the time. I am all for doping people with terminal cancer into oblivion if that is what they need to be comfortable in their final hours. I would hope doctors and nurses would have that much mercy for me if I were in that situation. Again, patients should have much more autonomy in such matters and I see health care moving towards that goal.
Cog
-
jgnat
In trying to gain control over a situation that is not producing the results we desire.....could we be unknowingly screwing up our future best interest? Like if you fight for custody of your child who the mother or father is trying to keep you from for no good reason......is this a protection for you as the future may be the loss of the child and the accociated pain that comes with it......or do you do nothing and go about your life..and wait and see what happens?
I severly dislike this analogy, The Dragon. You are suggesting that we accept unwanted decisions that are imposed on us because of unknown future pain?
ferankiespeakin: Freedom is found in those that break free of control by others, Government should not interfere
Do you know why the government made rules around who is of "sound mind" when they make a life-altering decision? These same rules surround wills and estates. They were made to protect the disabled from the unscrupulous.
There is accommodation for clear-headed individuals to make choices on how they die. That's why I provided the links.
http://www.helpguide.org/elder/advance_directive_end_of_life_care.htm
http://www.thebody.com/content/art16650.html
frankiespeakin: if they think they had enough, and want out, who are we to say how much pain one has to endure in order to justify suicide?
You are assuming that these people were of sound mind when they made the decision, and were tormented by unendurable pain. But the mentally ill go in cycles of despair. They also have moments of great creativity and insight. If you asked them during their highs, they would fight to live. So which temparament do you support? The person in the depths of their despond, or the height of their ecstacy?
Shortly before I committed my mom, I visited her in her home. She was vitally, desperately trying to stay alive. But in her delusion she believed the medication (lithium), the government, and my father were all trying to kill her. She was running out on to the street to slow down speeding cars. In the house, there was a terrible odor. I asked about that. She had decided to start a compost heap in a flower-pot in the corner of her kitchen counter. Her wrists were bandaged. I asked her about that. She had washed down the house to rid it of all residue of the lithium, and the sliding glass doors had come off their tracks and fallen on her. So, would I broaden my mind and "support" her by eliminating all lithium in the home and writing the government to tell them to stop bothering her? I can't enter her delusion to support her. I'd do what I did. I committed her to a mental institution. She spent a month in the hospital, first on tranquillizers for a short time to calm her down and then on a new stabilizing medication. Afterwards, she hooked up with a new love in her life, moved to the west coast, and has enjoyed over fifteen years of relative stability.
cognizent dissident: I think if people have really decided to end their life and are serious about it, they rarely tell anyone, they just do it.
I do see tragedies where people become too weak to end their own life. I've read seniors advice columns where the terminally ill are advised to stop eating and drinking if no-one is honoring their wishes to end their life. I think that in North America especially, there is a tendency in the medical community to try and save everyone, by every means possible. At some point there is no surgical answer, no pill, that will cure the patient. The incurable should be allowed to choose how they go, quickly or gradually. In the links above, they speak of those options discreetly. There are pain medications, if administered too liberally, shorten the life.
-
Abaddon
Surely one can argue that most suicidal or self destructive people do not have free will, but are, in the vast majority of cases, subject to a mental issue and therefore not in their normal mind. If they cannot give 'informed consent' to their own actions, how can they have free will?
-
The Dragon
Well...my point is our society in general seems to be self-destructive based on the degradation of society I have and do witness.
Should we be allowed to continue our present course and actions until we all die, and destroy our world...or should our freedom to do these things be taken away by someone who can striaghten this mess out?
Should politically correct preying on others be allowed to continue and be rewarded,as well as being the definition of "success"?
So question should be....Should a suicidal/self-destructive creation or society be allowed free will to fully carry out their wishes and desires? Or should they stopped...and restrained?
Is freedom in the hands of inexperience and ignorance dangerous to them?
-
jgnat
OK, Dragon, you are completely diverting from the theme of this thread, which I belived talked about the individual's freedom to choose their own end. But I'll tackle some of your thoughts anyhow. I notice that you are starting from a grand set of assumptions that I just don't share. I don't think that most people operate out of ignorance. I don't believe there is a grand plan by those in "power" to somehow control the "masses". And I don't think the world is going to hell in a handbasket.
The Dragon: Well...my point is our society in general seems to be self-destructive based on the degradation of society I have and do witness.
I don't buy in to the media drama. Disaster sells. My gut tells me that the average joe is doing just fine, doing his best to raise his family and make his surroundings just a little bit better. Look at the outpourings of support after disasters like the Tsunami and New Orleans. People WANT to help, even if the disaster is a continents away.
The Dragon: Should we be allowed to continue our present course and actions until we all die, and destroy our world...or should our freedom to do these things be taken away by someone who can striaghten this mess out?
Ha. I say the majority is much wiser than any one person. Our last oil crisis was in the seventies. What happened? People bought more economical models and new fields of exploration were opened up. This happened organically, without any individual conscience or will.
The Dragon: So question should be....Should a suicidal/self-destructive creation or society be allowed free will to fully carry out their wishes and desires? Or should they stopped...and restrained?
Who decides what is destructive? Paper or plastic? Paper kills forests, plastic uses up a limited resource. Perhaps we should make a regulation that people bring their own boxes and bags to fill at the store (BTW, I think this will happen ANYWAYS, due to public demand for planet consciousness).
Do we penalize fat people for using up public health care funds? How about smokers? Couch potatoes? They are willingly following a self-destructive course, are they not? The difference of course, is that their actions do not result in immenent destruction. Similarly, it is slow to galvanize the whole world population to the earth's problems. But I bet they will, in a generation or two. My granddaughter, already, fusses over the disposal of a single egg carton.
I CERTAINLY DO NOT BELIEVE THAT THE EARTH IS TERMINALLY ILL, due to expire any moment.
The Dragon: Is freedom in the hands of inexperience and ignorance dangerous to them?
The only more horrifying thought is to give their freedoms over to a despot. I don't care if they are a benevolent despot, they are still a despot. Look at the United Nations. They are nearly paralysed in sub-committees and red tape. No thank you. I'm voting for Joe public to take care of his and his own.
-
The Dragon
I did that on purpose...I pointed out and made self-destructive people a open target for everyones judgement..........
So that shortly..when everyone is done pointing out what they think needs to be done with them...and everyone decides that their freedom needs to be taken and them restrained.....
I will then set out to prove to each and everyone of you...you are in fact the self-destructive person you have been judging and deciding what is best for their/your well being.
What happens when I accomplish that? How will you react?
People are quick to judge and look down on their niegbors yards...they jump right in..and it is all fun..until they find out it is really YOUR backyard you just judged and looked down on.
I learned how to do that from the Bible....A prophet did it to David when he poked Bash-sheba and had her husband killed.
Dumbass judged himselfed to death..and didn't even realize it.
-
cognizant dissident
cognizent dissident: I think if people have really decided to end their life and are serious about it, they rarely tell anyone, they just do it.
I do see tragedies where people become too weak to end their own life. I've read seniors advice columns where the terminally ill are advised to stop eating and drinking if no-one is honoring their wishes to end their life. I think that in North America especially, there is a tendency in the medical community to try and save everyone, by every means possible. At some point there is no surgical answer, no pill, that will cure the patient. The incurable should be allowed to choose how they go, quickly or gradually. In the links above, they speak of those options discreetly. There are pain medications, if administered too liberally, shorten the life.
Jnat:
In the first instance I was thinking of severely depressed and suicidal people in particular. I agree with you that intervention is necessary in these instances as there is such a huge positive response to treatment for most depressed people who get help.
I also agree that there needs to be a clear distinction between those who suffer from depression and mental illness and those who suffer from a terminal illness. They are two completely different issues that cannot be lumped together. As an ex-nurse, I do understand the right to die with dignity issues and am a firm believer that the best way to protect oneself from unwanted interventions is a living will.
Yes, you are also correct that overmedicating pain could accidentally lead to accidental overdose and death in the terminally ill and pose ethical and legal concerns for doctors, nurses, and caregivers. However, there are instances where terminally patients are in agony and are undermedicated for pain because of fears of doctors of being accused of euthanasia. However, to the terminally ill patient and their family, comfort is a primary concern at the end and perhaps an accidental death due to overdose would not be considered the worst thing in such a case? It is a judgement call and what is the primary goal? What is the risk benefit analysis? The primary benefit is comfort and relief to the suffering, already dying patient and the risk is accidentally ending an agonizing existence a few days or weeks early. It is a judgement call to be made by the dying, I believe, or at least always with the benefit of the dying person concerned in mind and not the greater good of an abstract moral philosophy or someone else's moral agenda. I don't judge either way, but I know what I would want in such a case. I suspect we are of similiar mind here.
Dragon:
It appears to me also, that you are lumping together many different issues and looking for some sort of universal moral maxim that would apply to all. This is an over simplification of complex issues, I believe, and one JW's and ex JW's are very prone to. JW's and many who have left are still looking for that one size fits all magical solution to all the world's problems. It used to be Armageddon and Paradise and now, what is there to replace it?
In a previous post you seem to be saying that since the whole world seems to be bent on a course of self-annihalation and very few seem to be interested in intervening to stop it, then why should we intervene when the individual wants to kill himself/herself? What's the difference?
To answer, and try to tie the concepts together, I think that if it is in our power to intervene when an individual is suicidal, then we must do so for the benefit of them and for ourselves, and society as a whole. (I made an exception for the terminally ill, close to death, because the "benefit" could be seriously questionable?) For the same reason, if it is in our power to intervene and put a stop to problems of pollution and war on a global scale, then we should do what is in our power to do be part of the solution and not part of the problem. For many of us, our power is limited. The fact that the majority do not exercise this power and seem bent on greed and self-annihalation does not relieve us of our moral obligation to do what is right.
To get really philosophical, you asked earlier if we should be allowed the freedom to carry on in our current course of actions until we die? In reality, that is exactly what eveyone of us is going to do. Carry on in our current course of actions until we die. We could change our course of actions but we all as individuals are going to die eventually, regardless. We may save our species from extinction but we as individuals are all doomed to die sooner or later. This is why these are actually totally different questions. JW's try to find one solution. God will miraculously save us as individuals and the whole species in one grand gesture. The reality is not so easy, nor so comforting, I'm afraid.
Cog
-
The Dragon
If someone could point out the future for you...and show you driving off a cliff and dying.....would you still do everything the same way...or would you choose a different course of action by choice? Or would you need to be forced to?
Our ignorance and short-sightness is what makes us self destructive imo.
But there is also a great deal of freedom in ignorance too.....if you lose ignorance...you are also going to lose freedom.
Perfection and freedom are not the same thing. imo