Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

Ted Cruz

7 (6.5%)

Rick Santorum

16 (14.8%)

Michelle Bachmann

13 (12%)

Chris Christie

23 (21.3%)

Rand Paul

49 (45.4%)

Total Members Voted: 107

[mainiac]

But now we are back where we started, how do you cleave one from the other?

That's part of a wider debate, specifically a medical one. Who in the world right now is of sound mind? Who is not?

Pretty easy to get an approximation if you just use a Rawlsian veil of ignorance and make your best guesses in the spirit of the Pragmatism school.  It's an age old question... which means that clever minds have spent a lot of time coming up with answers to it.

[misko27]

Well since I have the legal dictionary open:

SOUND MIND. That state of a man's mind which is adequate to reason and comes to a judgment upon ordinary subjects, like other rational men.
     2. The law presumes that every person who has acquired his full age is of sound mind, and consequently competent to make contracts and perform all his civil duties; and he who asserts to the contrary must prove the affirmation of his position by explicit evidence, and not by conjectural proof.

[SalmonGod]

Any thoughts on my previous post?  The main point is we don't want people doing it on impulse, right?  The kind of mental illness that pushes people to self-terminate tends to be temporary, and if it's not, couldn't that in itself be seen as a sufficient burden of suffering to qualify for granting the wish?  Besides the mental illness/impulsive decision problem, it's mostly a matter of the individual's right to influence their own destiny, isn't it?  So... it seems to me like imposing a waiting period pretty well covers it.  I'm sure there are good arguments to be found against this approach, but I'd like to hear them.

[Flying Dice]

Owlbread, I've been there. No shit. And I can tell you that if you help a depressed person commit suicide, you are essentially committing murder. A mental illness that leads to suicide is almost always* one that will make the affected person act unlike they would if they were thinking clearly**. You wouldn't want to start killing offed depressed teens, would you? Assisted suicide should only be availible to those of sound mind.



*A possible exeption: Chronic treatment-resistant depression. Although in that case, the wish for suicide is only indirectly caused by the illness, so that might be a good way of distinguishing between acceptable and inacceptable medical reasons.
**The German word is unzurechnungsfähig, meaning roughly "could not be held accountable for their own actions". In English, it's less clear, of course.

I'd assumed that we were talking about assisted suicide in the sense in which it is usually discussed: terminally ill/permanently paralyzed patients who, while sound of mind, decide that they would rather die than suffer for however long they have left. I... honestly can't say I've ever heard anyone advocate for assisted suicide for people with depression.

[Max White]

Just earlier in this thread somebody was saying that prisoners should always be able to opt for the death penalty should they so choose...

[MaximumZero]

Just earlier in this thread somebody was saying that prisoners should always be able to opt for the death penalty should they so choose...

I've actually advocated that myself, but only for lifers who have no chance of parole.

[misko27]

I very well might be dead myself in the world Owlbread imagines. And I really don't want to die Owlbread. Must I, for simple brief, youthful problems? I certainly wasn't insane.

[Frumple]

Just earlier in this thread somebody was saying that prisoners should always be able to opt for the death penalty should they so choose...

I've actually advocated that myself, but only for lifers who have no chance of parole.

Barring a major change in how our society deals with ex-cons, I'd frankly just open it up for pretty much anyone. That, or potentially exile of some sort. By and large, having a felony on your record closes off... well, far too much. To a fair extent, at that point you might as well be either dead or in another country, because you're not going to interact with the majority of the one you're in ever again. The social and legal stigma is pretty damn bad. Felony conviction's actually on the short list of things I would kill myself over, heh. Quality of life after any jail time would tank straight to hell.

And... yeah, it's not just talking out the ass. My father's got multiple felony convictions, and mi madre's interacted with a number of ex-cons due to work over the years. It pretty much fucks you for the rest of your life, hard. Second class citizen or worse -- you are effectively removed from society, just barely less than if you were dead or kicked out. The actual prison time (and that's often hell enough) is just the start. States' recidivism rate isn't some strange phenomena.

Dignified way of being able to opt-out of the remaining years of bullshit would be nice. And yeah, it'd be abused and folks would be "encouraged" to take the option -- or just outright killed off the books -- but there's not exactly much room on the slide to slide further as is. States have serious goddamn issues when it comes to folks convicted of crime.

[Helgoland]

I'd assumed that we were talking about assisted suicide in the sense in which it is usually discussed: terminally ill/permanently paralyzed patients who, while sound of mind, decide that they would rather die than suffer for however long they have left. I... honestly can't say I've ever heard anyone advocate for assisted suicide for people with depression.

It was widened to a "Right to death" debate.

[wierd]

When faced with either a quick release to an uncertain fate (Nobody knows-- with certainty-- what happens after death. I am agnostic, and as such wont say there is or is not any kind of afterlife) or a slow and prolonged wait before eventual, natural termination (old age-- EVERYONE dies eventually.), the nature of that slow, and prolonged wait should be what is considered, if one is to be a pragmatist.

Say for instance, the self-ascribed "unreformable pedophile". There are many different psych profiles for people who engage in pedophilia, and for some the drive to have intimate relations with underage children is every bit as powerful as other, more respected and accepted forms of sexual drive. EG, these people are no more "Reformable" than is a gay person, or a straight person. Not all pedophiles are of this type, but some are.

Our society has a hard nosed policy about sexually intimate relations with children: It is illegal, and will be punished. We do this because children are not mature enough to deal with a sexually intimate relationship, they are not physically developed enough to safely engage in one (it is often physically harmful for them) , and the consequences they endure by being involved in one leaves powerful, and long lasting scars on their psyches, and results in diminished ability to live in society as adults. For this reason, when we catch pedophiles of the above type, we either have to hold them for life, or execute them. Their rate of recidivism will be near 100%. Letting them go DOES mean more children will be hurt.

I use this example, because it was obliquely referred to by OwlBread earlier.

Hypothetical situation:

We have captured such a pedophile. This is not his first victim, and not his first time being caught. He outright says he will do it again if released. Psychotherapy has not been effective.  He does not want to live the rest of his life in prison.

If you say that it is always 100% wrong to allow people to choose to die, whenever they want-- and that society has a moral obligation to always keep people alive, regardless of their wishes or their circumstances, then you are telling this man that he cant choose suicide as an alternative to being locked in a cell for the rest of his life.

He is not depressed. He is not mentally disabled. He is not suffering from a mood altering mental illness. He has an incurable/untreatable sexual paraphillia. There is no means to make him stop being a pedophile.

Do we offer this man the choice of an assisted, painless, and easy death, or do we instead force this man to endure whatever adversities await him inside the prison system as a permanent inmate, incarcerated for pedophilia, and assert from blind faith that this is simply the only conscionable choice of action?



 

[alexandertnt]

Well, we could always try to make the prison system not suck so much as to make people consider suicide as a viable alternative.

But I suppose there would be some people that may very well prefer suicide regardless...

[Owlbread]

I very well might be dead myself in the world Owlbread imagines. And I really don't want to die Owlbread. Must I, for simple brief, youthful problems? I certainly wasn't insane.

Is your concern that we would make suicide too easy?

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

When faced with either a quick release to an uncertain fate (Nobody knows-- with certainty-- what happens after death. I am agnostic, and as such wont say there is or is not any kind of afterlife) or a slow and prolonged wait before eventual, natural termination (old age-- EVERYONE dies eventually.), the nature of that slow, and prolonged wait should be what is considered, if one is to be a pragmatist.

Say for instance, the self-ascribed "unreformable pedophile". There are many different psych profiles for people who engage in pedophilia, and for some the drive to have intimate relations with underage children is every bit as powerful as other, more respected and accepted forms of sexual drive. EG, these people are no more "Reformable" than is a gay person, or a straight person. Not all pedophiles are of this type, but some are.

Our society has a hard nosed policy about sexually intimate relations with children: It is illegal, and will be punished. We do this because children are not mature enough to deal with a sexually intimate relationship, they are not physically developed enough to safely engage in one (it is often physically harmful for them) , and the consequences they endure by being involved in one leaves powerful, and long lasting scars on their psyches, and results in diminished ability to live in society as adults. For this reason, when we catch pedophiles of the above type, we either have to hold them for life, or execute them. Their rate of recidivism will be near 100%. Letting them go DOES mean more children will be hurt.

I use this example, because it was obliquely referred to by OwlBread earlier.

Hypothetical situation:

We have captured such a pedophile. This is not his first victim, and not his first time being caught. He outright says he will do it again if released. Psychotherapy has not been effective.  He does not want to live the rest of his life in prison.

If you say that it is always 100% wrong to allow people to choose to die, whenever they want-- and that society has a moral obligation to always keep people alive, regardless of their wishes or their circumstances, then you are telling this man that he cant choose suicide as an alternative to being locked in a cell for the rest of his life.

He is not depressed. He is not mentally disabled. He is not suffering from a mood altering mental illness. He has an incurable/untreatable sexual paraphillia. There is no means to make him stop being a pedophile.

Do we offer this man the choice of an assisted, painless, and easy death, or do we instead force this man to endure whatever adversities await him inside the prison system as a permanent inmate, incarcerated for pedophilia, and assert from blind faith that this is simply the only conscionable choice of action?

This was the kind of situation I originally had in mind.

Well, we could always try to make the prison system not suck so much as to make people consider suicide as a viable alternative.

But I suppose there would be some people that may very well prefer suicide regardless...

For some people though suicide really is the only viable alternative, short of a lobotomy or some form of castration - even then sexual desires remain sometimes without the testicles.

[Helgoland]

Owlbread, in that scenario the 'right to death' is perfectly reasonable; but there are cases that are not so simple. And the concern is not that you're "making suicide too easy" - I could kill myself within the next two minutes by tying an electric chord around my neck and jumping off the balcony - but that you're making the decision to commit suicide too easy, leading to guys like misko and me leading a short and unhappy life instead of a long and fulfilling one.

[Owlbread]

Owlbread, in that scenario the 'right to death' is perfectly reasonable; but there are cases that are not so simple. And the concern is not that you're "making suicide too easy" - I could kill myself within the next two minutes by tying an electric chord around my neck and jumping off the balcony - but that you're making the decision to commit suicide too easy, leading to guys like misko and me leading a short and unhappy life instead of a long and fulfilling one.

But how am I making the decision too easy? Because I'm presenting you with a cleaner, more dignified, easier way of doing it?

I heard a story recently about an old couple. The wife was suffering from Alzheimer's and, although she was fairly lucid she required 24 hour care. Her husband developed diabetes and had to have his leg amputated and, along with his quality of life plummeting like a stone, he realised he wouldn't be able to care for her anymore. He couldn't put her in care because she didn't want to go in and it would be too long before she would be "out of it" enough not to care.

So they made their decision. He poured his wife a glass of port and himself a glass of wine and laced them with poison. They drank it, then ate chocolate to cover up the bitter taste and they died together shortly afterwards.

They shouldn't have had to do that. The state should have been able to help them on their way. The husband wasn't suffering from a terribly life threatening illness though - he could have conceivably lived with his diabetes, without his leg. If we were going by some of the restrictions proposed earlier on by for instance Leafsnail then he would not qualify for assisted suicide. He just felt that his quality of life was so poor and, given that he couldn't leave his wife, they needed to die on their own terms there and then.

[Helgoland]

Don't you listen? I agree with you! I'm just saying that you need to have a more elaborate process than "Shoot anyone that asks", and I'd like to hear some input from you on that issue.