CD, :::::: There is still a need for many checks and balances in the system though, because it is recognized how easily taking away control can lead to abuses. Cog. :::::: But the big question that needs to be carefully consided: When is taking away control not abussive and when is it abusive. A person could be in terrible pain mentally and a good meaning person could step in and prolong agony they have no idea or clue, of what it is like.We can't live in their heads.
Should suicidal or self destructive people have free will?
by The Dragon 74 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
-
-
tetrapod.sapien
dragon,
where exactly is the place that "normal" becomes "disturbed"? how can *anyone* make a call without enforcing their OWN moral code on another human being?
and will restrictions imposed on "self destructive" people also apply to politicians and biznuzz men and other high powered suits who with the stroke of a pen destroy an entire planet, enforcing ultimately their own morals upon all flora and fauna?
tetra
PS: it's not just "suicidal or self destructive people". NO ONE has free will. who's delusional again?
-
cognizant dissident
But the big question that needs to be carefully consided: When is taking away control not abussive and when is it abusive. A person could be in terrible pain mentally and a good meaning person could step in and prolong agony they have no idea or clue, of what it is like.We can't live in their heads.
Good question. No easy answers. It's the stuff medical ethics classes are made of! I think a good starting point is for would-be helpers and interveners to ask, "What is my intention?". "Is it to benefit the other person? If so, then specifically how am I going to do that? What is likely to be the result of my intervention? Will it have the intended benefical effects?" "Are there special circumstances?" Are my intended interventions subject to peer review and criticism?" "What is the current best practice based on the most up to date empirical evidence available right now?" (These last two are more for professionals than family or friends but the first ones work well for both.) Of course, each person is unique and may respond differently to interventions/treatments and human judgement is faulty and error-prone. That is why we need checks and balances. But these questions are a good starting point. You can see why specialized training in counseling and mental health issues is often necessary for individuals to be sure that what they are doing truly "beneficial". (Interpretation: elders should not be dishing out medical, psychological or any other kind of health advice. They often do more harm than good because they have no training and half the time do not know what they are talking about! Actually, their biblical/spiritual advice is questionable, too. )
Cog
-
cognizant dissident
have more to say to tetra's post but have to make dinner...
Will come back later....
Cog
-
The Dragon
Does anyone have any faith in our chosen leaders to turn things around and figure out a way to bring about peace on earth...at the expense of the rich and powerful people who profit from our many problems and we depend on to "fight" them for us and protect us?
Are they going to allow anyone to succeed in making them and their services obsolete? Or are they going to do whatever is nessesary for our problems and their jobs to continue?
Decisions made always are made to whatever course benefits the person(s) making the decisions...and "right" to them is what ever puts the most money in their pockets. The long term effects are ignored and even covered up to the majority who will be affected the most by them.
Is this the makings of a bright and happy future...and peace on earth?
Or self-destructive behavior?
Trust and faith is in the wrong hands folks......
We are on a crash course..even if the radio is blaring...and the bridge is not out yet......least that is what I see.
-
jgnat
Frankiespeakin: But the big question that needs to be carefully consided: When is taking away control not abussive and when is it abusive.
Society has developed tests, checks and balances over time just to prevent these sorts of abuses. I see that cognizent dissident and I have this in common. We've both had experience in this sort of thing, only from other sides of the health care system. Here's some of the tests that are in place on this side of the pond. In the case of the mentally ill:
1. The person has to be engaging in behaviour that is a danger to himself or others.
2. Whoever makes the case to commit them must make their case before a judge.
3. A temporary order (typically thirty days) places the person in care.
4. It would be very difficult to detain the person further against their will. But this has never been a problem in my experience. Once the person is past their paranoid/psychotic episode, the person is usually ready to listen to their health care professional and make healthy choices for themselves.
In the case of dementia, there are standardized tests and questions a doctor will ask. It turns out my (doctor) sister was engaged in updating such a test twenty years ago. She (wisely) suggested we ask the same questions a doctor would ask anyways (such as what is their address, what day is it, etc.). This is the same information a person needs to function out in society anyways. If a person doesn't know their own address, that is a significant problem to them being able to live independently.
Cognizent Dissident: Intervening is not always taking away control or autonomy wholly. Sometimes we take it away temporarily, as with the mentally ill, but the goal is always to prevent immediate harm and to return it as soon as possible and restore the person to health and autonomy.
I, too, would take shade in your corn patch any time.
-
jgnat
As I've said before, I have faith in the body of society, individual members making positive choices for themselves, to turn the world around. I think positive change happens organically, outside of any influence or force. Leaders are merely window dressing.
I gave the example of the oil crisis in the seventies. I'll give another. No leader in a democratic country DARE start a war without first conducting a major media campaign. Why? The public will no longer support a war for no reason. If a leader starts an unpopular war, it is practically doomed for failure (Vietnam). Here's some assumptions you have to prove to me. Provide examples, please.
of the rich and powerful people who profit from our many problems
We are on a crash course
I don't see that. http://www.worldphilanthropists.org/
-
Narkissos
No society could subsist without majoritary social optimism. No society could ever change without some minoritary social pessimism. We just happen to be where we are.
And that applies just as nicely to dictatorships as to "democracies". Only the control of information (or propaganda) differs... in part. The average North Korean citizen must somehow believe that the local regime is the best possible to keep on acting "functional" where s/he is. So does the average JW...
On the psychiatric issue I could refer to Foucault, Laing, Cooper, Szasz and the like... but to a mainstream thinker this would be simply meaningless.
Let's keep the "insane" as silent and invisible as possible until we make them (perhaps) "functional" again. We have nothing to learn from their cry, have we?
-
jgnat
No society could subsist without majoritary social optimism. No society could ever change without some minoritary social pessimism. We just happen to be where we are. And that applies just as nicely to dictatorships as to "democracies".
I appreciate your perspective, and I like to think that the optimist majority holds sway everywhere. That would be quite a thought. I just think in totalitarian regimes, individual dissent and alternative perspectives can be suppressed for a time (even hundreds of years).
Let's keep the "insane" as silent and invisible as possible until we make them (perhaps) "functional" again. We have nothing to learn from their cry, have we?
When my son was ill he was worried about the "invisible robots" lasering his muscles. I was more concerned with the cut on his hand. I DO appreciate my son's unique perspective of the world. He comes up with dazzling insights sometimes. But I am his mother, and I insist, with his unique perspective, that he be safe.
Similarly, my mother was filled with the best of intentions as she ran out on to the road to slow down speeding cars. Since her brief institutionalization, she no longer runs out on the streets. But she still writes letters.
I don't say "gag the different". I say, keep them safe so they can grace us with their unique perspective another day.
-
frankiespeakin
Nark,
We should just obey society, have faith in our local government, support our troops, and don't make waves, and pray that the well meaning "society" doesn't lock us up in prision when we have a contrary view piont that doesn't fit in with the herd mentality.