mersenneforum.org

mersenneforum.org (https://www.mersenneforum.org/index.php)
-   Soap Box (https://www.mersenneforum.org/forumdisplay.php?f=20)
-   -   Should there be a right to end one's life? (https://www.mersenneforum.org/showthread.php?t=24746)

Fusion_power 2019-08-31 18:30

Should there be a right to end one's life?
 
I'd like to pose a question that is at least somewhat relevant in [URL="https://mersenneforum.org/showthread.php?t=17562"]this thread[/URL]. Do you support the concept of suicide being an individual right? In other words, does a person have the right to choose whether or not to kill him or her self?


99 out of 100 people will kill themselves under some set of conditions. This might be because of incurable disease, dementia, or depression. You don't have to worry about the 99, instead worry because the 1 in 100 won't kill themselves because they will try to kill everyone else first.

xilman 2019-08-31 20:02

[QUOTE=Fusion_power;524929]I'd like to pose a question that is at least somewhat relevant in this thread. Do you support the concept of suicide being an individual right? In other words, does a person have the right to choose whether or not to kill him or her self?[/QUOTE]I am very strongly in favour.

Assuming medical and/or information technology continues and expected life expectancy reaches millennia, I believe the right to death will become as uncontroversial as the right to life is now.

kriesel 2019-09-02 22:35

[QUOTE=Fusion_power;524929]I'd like to pose a question that is at least somewhat relevant in this thread. Do you support the concept of suicide being an individual right? In other words, does a person have the right to choose whether or not to kill him or her self?
[/QUOTE]Social acceptance depends on the method chosen and how long it takes and how it affects others. Rapid highly effective methods are frowned upon, while slow uncertain methods are tolerated if not encouraged. Consider that in parts of the developed world, the primary causes of death relate to abuse of too much food, or alcohol, or tobacco, or other substances, generally over long periods of time. Deliberately eating much more than the recommended or needed caloric intake for decades is not regarded as suicide, but surely increases risk of some of the top causes of death. Some even encourage this and take it as an affront if a family member does not sufficiently (over)indulge. "Mange, mange!" Excessive intake of alcohol increases risk of "accidentally" driving into a sturdy obstacle, falling down a flight of stairs or mistakenly jumping multiple stories, falling into a river and drowning, or fatally aspirating one's own vomit. Etc. "How about one for the road?" No. Nicotine and other drug addictions also have well publicized predictable frequently fatal outcomes over time. [URL]https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/leading-causes-of-death.htm[/URL] [URL]https://www.mdanderson.org/publications/focused-on-health/What-happens-when-you-overeat.h23Z1592202.html[/URL] I think if there was an accurate adding up of what fraction of the deaths from the leading causes was from self destructive choices, we'd find that sum to dwarf the nominal suicide rate, which is counted from fast methods.
The top 5, heart disease, cancer, accidents, lower respiratory disease, stroke, total
~1.72 million annually in the USA. Compare to the nominal suicide total by all fast methods, ~47,200. Even a mere 3% of that 1.7 million exceeds the nominal suicide count. And probably some part of the >83,000 deaths from the #7 cause diabetes also enter into the count attributable to slow suicide. There was a recent fatality nearby of a motorcyclist striking the back of a stopped automobile on a highway. Accident, or suicide? Many vehicles had slowed or stopped because of a large bird crossing the road, a common occurrence in the area, due to wetlands and lakes near the highway and a widespread appreciation of nature.
I think you're being unduly pessimistic in estimating that 1% would try to take a lot of others with them after having chosen to end their own life somehow. Somewhere between 47000 and maybe ten times that annually don't.

Robin Williams' predicament was presaged in a different form by a Richard Dreyfus movie [URL]https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whose_Life_Is_It_Anyway%3F_(film[/URL]) I wish that there had been some effective treatment for Robin, so that he could have remained longer and blessed us with more of his genius.

Dr Sardonicus 2019-09-03 16:34

Re: "right to die"
 
Maybe this "suicide as a personal right" discussion belongs in a separate thread.

Believe it or not, under early English common law, suicide was a [i]crime[/i] -- a [i]felony[/i], in fact. The Wikipedia page on [url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Felo_de_se]Felo de se[/url] informs us that [quote]Early English common law considered suicide a crime and a person found guilty of it, even though dead, was subject to punishments including forfeiture of property to the monarch and being given a shameful burial.[/quote]Thus, the family of a suicide could be disinherited and left destitute.

However, by the Eighteenth Century most suicides were deemed not to have been in their right minds, rather than acting out of criminal intent.

The term [i]felo de se[/i] was also applied to someone killed while committing a felony. I am not sure whether this covers "suicide by cop" or otherwise choosing death to avoid arrest and incarceration. The Wikipedia page [i]does[/i] include a prisoner condemned to death in England who "cheated the hangman" being deemed [i]felo de se[/i] in 1866.

Nowadays, though, suicide itself is not considered a crime in the USA, though it is a crime on other countries. [i]Assisting[/i] or [i]inducing[/i] a suicide, however, is another matter. That [i]is[/i] a crime in many US jurisdictions, though nowadays with legal exceptions carved out in some states for medically assisted suicides.

It seems, then, that the law recognizes differences in the [i]circumstances[/i] of a suicide. To view it as a personal right, it seems to me the suicide would have to be the result of a rational decision. Suicide as the result of clinical depression or unfathomable despair or despondency doesn't meet this criterion. On the other hand, someone who is in a burning building and facing a choice between jumping from an upper-story window and being burned alive, may rationally choose to jump. A patient with a terminal diagnosis, and a prognosis of complete debility and/or agonizing pain, may rationally decide not to endure such suffering. Thus, someone who assists the suicide of a patient with a nightmare prognosis is, at least in my book, less of a criminal than someone who tries to talk a despondent person into killing himself, or knowingly provides such a person with the means to kill himself. And now, some states have enacted laws allowing medically-assisted suicides.

So -- given circumstances in which a decision to commit suicide may reasonably be viewed as rational, is it a personal right? In those circumstances, my answer is yes. I reject the notion that suicide in such cases is an act of despair.

Further, I deem those who would compel another person to endure the debility and pain of a horrible terminal medical condition as arrogant and cruel. Arrogant because it is not their decision to make. Cruel, as in "You would not do it to a dog."

Perhaps the most egregious and tragic case of this sort was that of Terri Schiavo. She was in a "persistent vegetative state" after a course of treatment intended to help the Schiavos conceive a child resulted in her having a heart attack, which led to her brain being deprived of oxygen for, well, too long. Her husband won a medical malpractice suit, and used all the proceeds to get other opinions on Terri's condition, and even to try experimental treatments. When he was convinced she would not recover, he sought, as her husband, to carry out what he said was her wish to discontinue treatment in such a circumstance. Right-to-life fanatics begged to differ. The case was argued all the way to the Florida Supreme Court, which decided it was indeed his decision to make.

After trying repeatedly and unsuccessfully to undo the results of the legal process, and all life support was ended, the "right to life" fanatics staged theatrical (purported) attempts to bring her water. I say "purported" because they knew, or should have known that, had one of them actually gotten to her with water and poured it down her throat, she almost certainly would have choked on it and died, which would have gotten the "rescuer" charged with some form of felonious homicide.

I am bewildered by the religious stance that suicide is sinful because life is a "gift from God," but, on the other hand, also the "property of God." A gift, I thought, belongs [i]to the recipient[/i], not the giver. (As I was growing up, someone who gave a gift and later wanted it back (i.e. claimed ownership of what they had given) was painted with the insult [url=http://www.wordorigins.org/index.php/site/comments/indian_giver/]Indian giver[/url].)

In the [b]JAG[/b] episode [i]The Martin Baker Fan Club[/i] (Oct 20, 1998), the character Roscoe Martin, who had been paraplegic but was now quadriplegic and only breathing with the aid of a respirator, asked his friends to give him his flag, which they did. He clenched the staff between his teeth, and, saying "Ejecting," used it to flip the switch to shut off the respirator. (Note: In real life, this wouldn't be possible. There wouldn't be an on-off switch that easily accessible.)

One bit of practical advice regarding the prevention of unnecessary suffering through medical treatment prolonging life in terminal cases: There are measures you can take apart from suicide. You can make out an "advance directive" (e.g. a "living will"), a legal document stating your wishes regarding medical treatment should you become unable to do so. And make sure there are extra copies. I know of a case where a hospital ignored a unconscious dying patient's prior instructions, and disregarded his wife's pleas, claiming it had lost the advance directive that was supposed to be on file. (Fortunately for the patient's wishes, he unexpectedly woke up, and became able to tell them himself to discontinue treatment.)

Uncwilly 2019-09-03 21:44

[COLOR="SeaGreen"][B][SIZE="3"]Mod note:
All of the previous posts were moved from the gun control thread.[/SIZE][/B][/COLOR]

kladner 2019-09-03 23:41

In Tolkien's mythology, the (immortal unless killed) Elves called [U]death[/U]: Eru("God")'s Gift to Man.

Uncwilly 2019-09-09 03:48

[QUOTE=Fusion_power;524929]This might be because of incurable disease, dementia, or depression.[/QUOTE]
First, September 10th this year is International Suicide Prevention Day. I think that suicide should be seen differently than "the right to end one's life". Killing yourself because of desperation or depression is something that I think society should work to prevent. I lost someone (a co-worker that I enjoyed working alongside of) to suicide because a short term desperation. They needed help and did not get it. I had a friend attempt it. They were rescued by an other friend. Their outlook on life is vastly better (they had suffered from traumatic abuse at the time.) If you feel desperate, reach out for help. If you have even a hint of an idea that someone might be contemplating suicide, reach out and talk to the person. It is better to be embarrassed than to be sorrowful. I have had someone 'unfriend' me on social media because I reached out and asked if they are ok. I would do it again. If your friend tries to shake you off, call in the emergency responders. Better to be sure than sad.

That said:
I lean toward what Jack Kavorkian initially was espousing. Someone with a [B]terminal[/B] condition with no prospect of improvement should be able to end their life. To prevent it from becoming something that gets abused, there should safe guards in place. There was to be time between the first interview (and request) and second. There should be multiple individuals with different roles doing the assessment. The interviews should be recorded on video. If the party that is seeking to terminate their life is capable, there should be a written document signed in the presence of 2 witnesses that are not the doctor that will be assisting nor a family member of the individual. Potentially qualifying conditions should be previously established by a broad panel. Psychological conditions should not be qualifying.

retina 2019-09-09 04:06

[QUOTE=Uncwilly;525537]First, September 10th this year is International Suicide Prevention Day. I think that suicide should be seen differently than "the right to end one's life". Killing yourself because of desperation or depression is something that I think society should work to prevent. I lost someone (a co-worker that I enjoyed working alongside of) to suicide because a short term desperation. They needed help and did not get it. I had a friend attempt it. They were rescued by an other friend. Their outlook on life is vastly better (they had suffered from traumatic abuse at the time.) If you feel desperate, reach out for help. If you have even a hint of an idea that someone might be contemplating suicide, reach out and talk to the person. It is better to be embarrassed than to be sorrowful. I have had someone 'unfriend' me on social media because I reached out and asked if they are ok. I would do it again. If your friend tries to shake you off, call in the emergency responders. Better to be sure than sad.

That said:
I lean toward what Jack Kavorkian initially was espousing. Someone with a [B]terminal[/B] condition with no prospect of improvement should be able to end their life. To prevent it from becoming something that gets abused, there should safe guards in place. There was to be time between the first interview (and request) and second. There should be multiple individuals with different roles doing the assessment. The interviews should be recorded on video. If the party that is seeking to terminate their life is capable, there should be a written document signed in the presence of 2 witnesses that are not the doctor that will be assisting nor a family member of the individual. Potentially qualifying conditions should be previously established by a broad panel. Psychological conditions should not be qualifying.[/QUOTE]So basically you are in favour of various arbitrary restrictions based upon ... what criteria?

Why would you poke your nose into someone else's business? If they want to go then that is their choice.

The only time I would think that is justified in interfering is when they try to take others with them. Otherwise go for it.

This reminds me of the sodomy and homosexual laws (current and old). They are basically the "I don't like it" laws. A bunch of nosey people trying to stop others because they don't like it.

Uncwilly 2019-09-09 04:36

[QUOTE=retina;525540]So basically you are in favour of various arbitrary restrictions based upon ... what criteria?

Why would you poke your nose into someone else's business? If they want to go then that is their choice.[/quote]Currently many areas have prohibitions on people ending their one life. I am for changing from a complete ban to a more rational scheme. Would you rather have the complete ban in place?

Opting for "a permanent solution to a temporary problem" is suicide. Dealing with a terminal condition that is painful or has sever decline in the quality of life is different. The restrictions are not arbitrary. They are thought through, designed to prevent abuse (by over eager family members, pushy doctors, or even euthanasia advocates), provide certainty, and will help forestall reactions by opponents that might cause a reversion to a total ban.

So, you are in support if for instance, a teenage receives some criticism from a peer, grabbing gun at home at home and splattering their brains all over?

retina 2019-09-09 05:12

[QUOTE=Uncwilly;525541]Would you rather have the complete ban in place?[/QUOTE]I'm fairly certain this expresses my answer.[QUOTE=retina;525540]Otherwise go for it.[/QUOTE][QUOTE=Uncwilly;525541]So, you are in support if for instance, a teenage receives some criticism from a peer, grabbing gun at home at home and splattering their brains all over?[/QUOTE]That is why guns are a terrible thing, its too easy to use against others and oneself. But otherwise any teenager smart enough and motivated enough will figure something out. And all this pussy-footing around people with sensitive feelings is also terrible IMO. All this "Waah, you said a mean thing to me :bang:" is only encouraged by helicopter parenting.

Uncwilly 2019-09-09 05:59

[QUOTE=retina;525540]Otherwise go for it.[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=retina;525544]That is why guns are a terrible thing, its too easy to use against others and oneself.[/QUOTE]Why the arbitrary threshold of ease? You say go for it, but you seem to be saying that firearms puts the bar too low. If you think that it should be fully allowed, why restrict the means?

retina 2019-09-09 06:09

[QUOTE=Uncwilly;525545]Why the arbitrary threshold of ease? You say go for it, but you seem to be saying that firearms puts the bar too low. If you think that it should be fully allowed, why restrict the means?[/QUOTE]Because a firearm is too easy to harm others (I said that in the sentence you quoted). We have seen that happen many times.

Jumping off a bridge, taking pills, self hanging, etc. doesn't harm others (except the emotional side of things) and they are simple to arrange for anyone suitably able and motivated.

[size=1]Just to be clear. If there were some magic spell that only enabled people to use guns to harm themselves and no one else, then I would be all for everyone to own as many guns as they please. But until that magic happens the risk of harm to others is too great to allow any random d*ckh**d to have a gun.[/size]

kladner 2019-09-09 06:59

[QUOTE=retina;525546]Because a [U]firearm is too easy to harm others[SIZE=4][COLOR=Red]*[/COLOR][/SIZE]. [/U]We have seen that happen many times.

Jumping off a bridge, taking pills, self hanging, etc. doesn't harm others (except the emotional side of things) and they are simple to arrange for anyone suitably able and motivated.[/QUOTE]
But don't leap in front of trains, buses, cars, or anything else with a (an?) human operator. Don't get all suicidal and stuff when there are others in the vehicle which you are controlling.

[SIZE=4][COLOR=Red]*[COLOR=Black] [SIZE=2]It is also easier to harm oneself[/SIZE][/COLOR][/COLOR][/SIZE][SIZE=4][COLOR=Red][COLOR=Black][SIZE=2] in [/SIZE][/COLOR][/COLOR][/SIZE][SIZE=2][COLOR=Red][COLOR=Black]a moment of anguish[/COLOR][/COLOR][/SIZE][SIZE=4][COLOR=Red][COLOR=Black][SIZE=2] which might diminish[/SIZE][/COLOR][/COLOR][/SIZE][SIZE=4][COLOR=Red][COLOR=Black][SIZE=2] if the means of instantaneous self-termination were not so copiously available. Jumping, hanging, OD-ing all require some premeditation [U][I]and[/I][/U] preparation to carry out.[/SIZE][/COLOR][/COLOR][/SIZE][SIZE=4][COLOR=Red][COLOR=Black][SIZE=2]
[/SIZE][/COLOR][/COLOR][/SIZE]
[SIZE=4][COLOR=Red][COLOR=Black][SIZE=2]I support the choice to die. I also think that the choice [U][I]ideally[/I][/U] might be based on reflection and counseling, not impulse.
[/SIZE][/COLOR][/COLOR][/SIZE]

retina 2019-09-09 07:08

[QUOTE=kladner;525548]But don't leap in front of trains, buses, cars, or anything else with a (an?) human operator. Don't get all suicidal and stuff when there are others in the vehicle which you are controlling.[/QUOTE]Yes, I agree. But that is up to the person involved. However the difference here is the those devices/vehicles have uses that are considerably positive in most circumstances. The only reason guns exist is to cause harm (I don't buy the "defence" argument at all).

kladner 2019-09-09 07:59

[QUOTE=retina;525550]Yes, I agree. But that is up to the person involved. However the difference here is the those devices/vehicles have uses that are considerably positive in most circumstances. The only reason guns exist is to cause harm (I don't buy the "defence" argument at all).[/QUOTE]
True on all points. Firearms are killing devices. Those who keep them stand a fair chance of being the victims of their own weapons, so protection is a very shaky proposition. Besides that, their toddlers may shoot each other, though this may be Natural Selection at work.

Dr Sardonicus 2019-09-09 12:55

[QUOTE=retina;525540]<snip>
Why would you poke your nose into someone else's business? If they want to go then that is their choice.

The only time I would think that is justified in interfering is when they try to take others with them. Otherwise go for it.[/quote]I have read of cases where "jumpers" have been urged to "go for it" by onlookers. If you happened to see someone threatening to jump, would you egg them on? Walk away because it's "nothing to do with me"? What would you do if it was a friend?

I am sure there are those who would lament the fact that "nosy" friends acted to prevent a potential suicide in the following instance, but I am not among them.

[url=https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/did-abraham-lincolns-bromance-alter-course-american-history-180962203/]The True Friendship That Saved Abraham Lincoln’s Life[/url]
[quote]But in a move that has baffled historians, Lincoln broke off the engagement in late December 1840 and fell into a suicidal depression. Bedridden, he was prone to hallucinations, and his friends were worried enough to hide his razor. He was, in the words of his friend, future law partner, and eventual biographer William H. Herndon, “crazy as a loon.”[/quote]

[quote=retina;525540]This reminds me of the sodomy and homosexual laws (current and old). They are basically the "I don't like it" laws. A bunch of nosey people trying to stop others because they don't like it.[/QUOTE]
So, if you knew someone who was driven to despair by the impact of such a law, would you stand idly by if you thought they might be contemplating suicide?

retina 2019-09-09 13:13

[QUOTE=Dr Sardonicus;525574]I have read of cases where "jumpers" have been urged to "go for it" by onlookers. If you happened to see someone threatening to jump, would you egg them on? Walk away because it's "nothing to do with me"? What would you do if it was a friend?[/QUOTE]I don't know what I would do. But I do think that if someone is still standing on the edge and hasn't yet jumped then I question their dedication to the task. Why make such a big thing of it, right? Just climb over and start falling, shouldn't be that difficult. So those people [i]don't[/i] actually want to end it all, they want someone to stop them. The "cry for help" thing.[QUOTE=Dr Sardonicus;525574]So, if you knew someone who was driven to despair by the impact of such a law, would you stand idly by if you thought they might be contemplating suicide?[/QUOTE]Once again I don't know what I would do. I think such laws are overbearing and stupid anyway. And if it was me in that situation, then I'd just hide my "shame" instead of letting those intolerant busybodies get their way.

Uncwilly 2019-09-09 15:31

Retina, some medications have a side effect of suicidal ideation. Remove the medication and the evil thoughts go away. Shouldn't that person be protected long enough for the problem to be determined and addressed? Also, some diseases (like sepsis) cause temporary periods where people don't have their full faculties. Again, this is a temporary condition. Shouldn't these persons be protected? Hospital staff use restraints in this situation and even medication. Are you suggesting that they should be allowed to terminate themselves, even though this is a passing abnormal condition?

Dr Sardonicus 2019-09-09 17:50

Speaking of not making it too easy: The "suicide clause" in life insurance policies excludes payment of benefits for death by suicide, for a fixed period of time (usually two years) after the policy is issued. This is to prevent someone intent on suicide buying a policy on their way out, simply as a means to settle their debts or to provide for their families.
[QUOTE=Uncwilly;525581]Retina, some medications have a side effect of suicidal ideation.
<snip>[/QUOTE]
It would seem that a case in point would be Alan Turing. He agreed to "chemical castration" -- injections of estrogen (DES) to curb his libido, as an alternative to incarceration for "gross indecency." Unfortunately, in addition to making him grow breasts and sapping his energy, the treatment subjected him to extreme mood swings. On one of the "down" swings, he committed suicide.

Kebbaj 2019-09-09 18:44

[QUOTE=Fusion_power;524929]I'd like to pose a question that is at least somewhat relevant in [URL="https://mersenneforum.org/showthread.php?t=17562"]this thread[/URL]. Do you support the concept of suicide being an individual right? [/QUOTE]

The problem does not arise on the term of law. because once dead the right we do not care !!
the problem arises in terms of respect for others. I respect the person and his choice but I totally disapprove the act!
For me, our body is not our property, we rent it to life to generate other lives,
or simply love another life.

who came to life by his own choice?
........!!

retina 2019-09-09 22:35

[QUOTE=Uncwilly;525581]Retina, some medications have a side effect of suicidal ideation. Remove the medication and the evil thoughts go away. Shouldn't that person be protected long enough for the problem to be determined and addressed? Also, some diseases (like sepsis) cause temporary periods where people don't have their full faculties. Again, this is a temporary condition. Shouldn't these persons be protected? Hospital staff use restraints in this situation and even medication. Are you suggesting that they should be allowed to terminate themselves, even though this is a passing abnormal condition?[/QUOTE]I'm fairly sure I've already answered this above. If someone wants to jump then let them jump. We have exponential population growth, you want to use force to make that worse for everyone?

Uncwilly 2019-09-09 23:09

[QUOTE=retina;525592]I'm fairly sure I've already answered this above. If someone wants to jump then let them jump. We have exponential population growth, you want to use force to make that worse for everyone?[/QUOTE]So, you are ok with someone offing themselves because of bad medication. What is to stop a "Doctor of Death" from prescribing the one medication (with the highest probability of side effects) from a suite that are all suitable for use for a condition? Would that be right for the Dr. to do (actively attempting to help people unwitting to shuffle off this mortal coil)?

If the person is not in their right mind and they would not kill themselves while sane and not under duress, then why should we let them 'accidentally' as it were kill themselves while in a compromised state?


I have already said my piece about the overpopulation issue, elsewhere in this forum. You appear to be leaning toward culling every 10th kid that starts grade 1.

Dr Sardonicus 2019-09-10 03:31

[QUOTE=Kebbaj;525587]The problem does not arise on the term of law. because once dead the right we do not care !!
<snip>[/quote]
Of course, a suicide, being dead, has no legal liability. However, anyone else who may have [i]urged[/i] or [i]assisted[/i] the suicide could face felony charges. That is an issue dealt with in "medical aid in dying" laws allowing terminally ill patients with a short (6 month) prognosis to obtain lethal prescriptions without the doctor facing prosecution for assisting a suicide.
[quote]who came to life by his own choice?
........!![/QUOTE]
You might be in for a shock if you look up the term antinatalism (or anti-natalism).

retina 2019-09-10 03:37

[QUOTE=Uncwilly;525593]So, you are ok with someone offing themselves because of bad medication. What is to stop a "Doctor of Death" from prescribing the one medication (with the highest probability of side effects) from a suite that are all suitable for use for a condition? Would that be right for the Dr. to do (actively attempting to help people unwitting to shuffle off this mortal coil)?[/QUOTE]Firstly, I think it is an American thing (or maybe a Western thing, I'm not sure) to think that everything can be solved with some magic chemicals.

Everything they choose leads up to the decision point. If someone is willing to blindly trust some doc to solve whatever problem with drugs then they have to deal with the consequences of their misplaced trust.

I don't see why you keep trying to make arbitrary exceptions to allow you to interfere. Let people make up their own minds. If they make a bad choice and don't bother to check what their meds will do the that is their own concern.

Uncwilly 2019-09-10 04:43

[QUOTE=retina;525601]I don't see why you keep trying to make arbitrary exceptions to allow you to interfere. Let people make up their own minds. If they make a bad choice and don't bother to check what their meds will do the that is their own concern.[/QUOTE]
Does this go for minors that can execute on suicidal thoughts but not give full consent to which medications?

Frequently the choice is medication or death (or other severe outcome.) So opting not to receive treatment is a choice for death. So a person not opting for that is making an affirmative choice (or if they are unable, their medical proxy) to remain alive. So any suicidal side effect of the medication is counter to a rational choice.

Either you enjoy being the devil's advocate, or you have a very bleak outlook (or both).

S485122 2019-09-10 05:15

[QUOTE=Uncwilly;525603]...
Frequently the choice is medication or death (or other severe outcome.)
...[/QUOTE]When doctors prescribe a treatment with severe side-effects, they should ensure that the side-effects are provided for, this is obvious in the case of induced come for instance. Why isn't it also obvious if the effects are psychic ? The medical staff should provide for the temporary delusions induced by the treatment they provide.[QUOTE=Uncwilly;525603]
...
a rational choice.
...[/QUOTE]Human beings are not often rational, certainly not when taking "important" decisions. I think there are at least two references cited on this very forum : one about buying a car, the other about trading in what the stock market has to offer. And, after all, rationality is not an absolute : what one person finds rational might be considered irrational by another.

Jacob

retina 2019-09-10 05:29

[QUOTE=Uncwilly;525603]Does this go for minors that can execute on suicidal thoughts but not give full consent to which medications?

Frequently the choice is medication or death (or other severe outcome.) So opting not to receive treatment is a choice for death. So a person not opting for that is making an affirmative choice (or if they are unable, their medical proxy) to remain alive. So any suicidal side effect of the medication is counter to a rational choice.[/QUOTE]I'll take your word for it that there are meds that if not taken will cause the patient to die, and if taken will cause the patient to want to die. Well so be it, you die one way or the other. If it was me I'd just choose to least painful way, my choice, my outcome. Gotta die of something. Let people make their own choices.

Patient X: Waah, these meds make me want to kill myself
Me: Okay. But why tell me? Just do it and stop whining.
Patient X: I was hoping someone would help me.
Me: I'll call Uncwilly for you, okay? He'll strap you in tight so you can't move.
Patient X: Umm ... not sure if that is better or not.[QUOTE=Uncwilly;525603]Either you enjoy being the devil's advocate, or you have a very bleak outlook (or both).[/QUOTE]I certainly enjoy being a devils advocate. But these posts here are my actual thoughts.

Dr Sardonicus 2019-09-10 12:00

[QUOTE=retina;525601]<snip>
If someone is willing to blindly trust some doc to solve whatever problem with drugs then they have to deal with the consequences of their misplaced trust.

I don't see why you keep trying to make arbitrary exceptions to allow you to interfere. Let people make up their own minds. If they make a bad choice and don't bother to check what their meds will do the that is their own concern.[/QUOTE]If you dismiss someone consulting an actual physician as "willing to blindly trust some doc" then what source would be more reliable? What source [i]should[/i] they blindly trust to "check what their meds will do" -- the company that [i]makes[/i] the drug? A Christian Science web site, perhaps? Someone that says you should drink bleach to cure what ails you?

Nowadays, even drug [i]ads[/i] here in the good ol' USA mention possible "side effects" -- which "may include" suicidal thoughts or actions, sleepwalking, hallucinations (seeing talking bees with big blue eyes, or animated or anthropomorphized human organs), turning into a golden labrador retriever, etc.

It [i]would[/i] be a good idea to check on [i]the doctor[/i] -- see if there have been any complaints or lawsuits, that sort of thing. Similar to what you might do if you need to hire a roofer or a plumber.

The OP to this thread mentions those who want to take others with them when they go. Don't worry about a thing! [url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/health/white-house-considers-controversial-plan-on-mental-illness-and-mass-shooting/2019/09/09/eb58b6f6-ce72-11e9-87fa-8501a456c003_story.html?noredirect=on]White House weighs controversial plan on mental illness and mass shootings[/url]

[quote]Former NBC chairman Bob Wright, a longtime friend and associate of President Trump’s, has briefed top officials, including the president, the vice president and Ivanka Trump, on a proposal to create a new research arm called the Health Advanced Research Projects Agency (HARPA) to come up with out-of-the-box ways to tackle health problems, much like the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) does for the military, according to several people who have been briefed.

After the recent shootings in El Paso and Dayton, Ohio, Ivanka Trump asked those advocating for the new agency whether it could produce new approaches to stopping mass shootings, said one person familiar with the conversations who spoke on the condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to discuss them.

Advisers to Wright quickly pulled together a three-page proposal — called SAFEHOME for Stopping Aberrant Fatal Events by Helping Overcome Mental Extremes — which calls for exploring whether technology including phones and smartwatches can be used to detect when mentally ill people are about to turn violent.[/quote]

retina 2019-09-10 12:24

[QUOTE=Dr Sardonicus;525622]If you dismiss someone consulting an actual physician as "willing to blindly trust some doc" then what source would be more reliable? What source [i]should[/i] they blindly trust to "check what their meds will do" -- the company that [i]makes[/i] the drug? A Christian Science web site, perhaps? Someone that says you should drink bleach to cure what ails you?[/QUOTE]Learn to do some research (not you, the patient) of their own. Most western docs seem to only care about how much money they can make from prescribing expensive drugs. Most Eastern docs seem to only care about treatments that do nothing but make you [i]feel[/i] like you are doing something. There are of course exceptions. Find those exceptions and talk to them. Do your own research also. Ask more docs. Do more research. Ask others that have also done their own research. With a search engine and a telephone it shouldn't take more than a few hours, maybe a day, to get a good idea about things.

Have you heard about the ketogenic diets and how it helps cure childhood epilepsy? No. Most people haven't, and most docs also haven't. Most docs are more than happy to prescribe various top-dollar drugs to try and manage the problem. The drugs usually don't solve anything, they just make people [i]feel[/i] like they are trying their best. But very few docs even know, let alone recommend, that a simple diet change can solve the problem in about 1/3rd of cases. A success rate much higher than [i]any[/i] known drug or combination of drugs. So why don't they recommend the most successful treatment? Money. They can't get kickbacks from telling people to eat differently. And lack of caring. They learned in med school some things, and many won't bother to learn anything more for the rest of their careers.

So, yes, do your own research. Don't blindly trust a doc (or anyone) just because (s)he has some qualifications.

Dr Sardonicus 2019-09-10 14:03

[QUOTE=retina;525624]Have you heard about the ketogenic diets and how it helps cure childhood epilepsy? No. Most people haven't, and most docs also haven't.[/QUOTE]Actually, I have. "Keto" diets are usually touted as weight-loss diets (The Atkins diet fad is a case in point), but I did some digging after seeing some recent promotions, and found that keto diets have long been known to control childhood epilepsy.

So, why are keto diets -- along with pricey prepared keto foods -- heavily promoted for weight loss? I would say money.

retina 2019-09-10 14:17

[QUOTE=Dr Sardonicus;525627]... but I did some digging after seeing some recent promotions, and found that keto diets have long been known to control childhood epilepsy.[/QUOTE]Yes, It isn't a secret. But asking most docs you'd think it doesn't exist.[QUOTE=Dr Sardonicus;525627]So, why are keto diets -- along with pricey prepared keto foods -- heavily promoted for weight loss? I would say money.[/QUOTE]A good place to get deeply biased advice is places that sell the same stuff they are making claims about. But I wasn't suggesting ketogenic diets for weight loss.

Kebbaj 2019-09-11 06:54

[QUOTE=retina;525624]Learn to do some research (not you, the patient) of their own. Most western docs seem to only care about how much money they can make from prescribing expensive drugs. Most Eastern docs seem to only care about treatments that do nothing but make you [i]feel[/i] like you are doing something. There are of course exceptions. Find those exceptions and talk to them. Do your own research also. Ask more docs. Do more research. Ask others that have also done their own research. With a search engine and a telephone it shouldn't take more than a few hours, maybe a day, to get a good idea about things.

Have you heard about the ketogenic diets and how it helps cure childhood epilepsy? No. Most people haven't, and most docs also haven't. Most docs are more than happy to prescribe various top-dollar drugs to try and manage the problem. The drugs usually don't solve anything, they just make people [i]feel[/i] like they are trying their best. But very few docs even know, let alone recommend, that a simple diet change can solve the problem in about 1/3rd of cases. A success rate much higher than [i]any[/i] known drug or combination of drugs. So why don't they recommend the most successful treatment? Money. They can't get kickbacks from telling people to eat differently. And lack of caring. They learned in med school some things, and many won't bother to learn anything more for the rest of their careers.

So, yes, do your own research. Don't blindly trust a doc (or anyone) just because (s)he has some qualifications.[/QUOTE]

very good advise. The patient must be treated before treating the disease. and the best doctor is either.


All times are UTC. The time now is 06:16.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.