Euthanasia and the Right to Die.

[worm]

and so we know that such ideas are not fit for purpose, because we know that any observed actions is not the only output.

[eFestivals]

Behaviour has a pattern.

and the proof for that is....?

It's a guess. It's a guess because us humans like to put things in boxes, even if they might not have a box to go into.

Until we have proof that there is such a box, it's just a guess.

[eFestivals]

Thinking doesn't come into psychology.

For your version of it, never has a truer word been said.

[worm]

The word 'science' is not just one thing of one level of substance. Just because scientific method is used doesn't make anything of the results good or worthwhile - as the weather forecasts analogy gets to show.

[worm]

and the proof for that is....?

[worm]

For your version of it, never has a truer word been said.

[feral chile]

and even if there was, what says that the norm has any meaning?

Just because the norm might be people choosing to live, it doesn't prove there's anything wrong with choosing to die.

The only person in the right place to know is the self.

[Rufus Gwertigan]

Yes that's very true. With the obvious proviso that there are checks in place, particularly that there's nothing that can be done to improve quality of life that might change the choice. I'm making a big assumption here that people would choose to live if they didn't have to cope with whatever they're finding unbearable.

And to ensure they're not under undue pressure from relatives etc.

[eFestivals]

Yes that's very true. With the obvious proviso that there are checks in place, particularly that there's nothing that can be done to improve quality of life that might change the choice.

why the checks?

If a physically-able person* wants to go away and top themselves they don't have to ask anyone's permission first. Why should the likes of Tony Nicholson have to get someone's permission before he's allowed to make the same free choices as any abled person? It's blatant discrimination against the physically disabled.

(* obviously, things are somewhat different when it comes to the mentally disabled).

In other parts of life there's an obligation on the abled to try to give the same access to things for the disabled as the abled are able to freely enjoy.

That idea should be expanded so that the likes of Tony N can request help to die and be given it, without need of any reference to 'the system' for checks of suitability, or laws which might conflict with Tony's request for help to die (such as murder laws).

When it comes down to it, euthanasia happens every day in every town and with the full support of 'the system' - for example when doctors stop giving treatments that will be ultimately fruitless.

Why the fuck should the likes of Tony get considered on a completely different basis to all that is around him?

I'm making a big assumption here that people would choose to live if they didn't have to cope with whatever they're finding unbearable.

it's a big assumption, and one without any basis.

We are brought into this world without a choice. We are free to make a choice about when we wish to leave it.

And to ensure they're not under undue pressure from relatives etc.

Again, there's no such checks on those who are not already within "the system's" sight.

If there is no reason to doubt a person's proper brain function and their ability to freely communicate - as was the case with Tony N - then there is no place for the system to interfere and make such checks, unless the same checks are to be made for every living person constantly thru-out their lives.

[worm]

We are brought into this world without a choice. We are free to make a choice about when we wish to leave it.

[eFestivals]

Right Neil, in sentiment I agree. But there's a catch to this and it pinpoints the usefulness of psychology and the politics involved.....

If the state makes this a right then you will find people committing suicide from certain areas of society under certain conditions. People will be committing suicide (legally) owing to the conditions they are under rather than due to their life itself.

Let's use the tory work placement benefit scheme. I'm sure you'll be aware of this. Essentially, the government take away jobs and then turn them into back-to-work placements, thereby taking away full time wages for full time jobs.

This analogy is no different to this scenario. Instead of having counselling in place and having to fund help for people in dire circumstances, the government would be able to say 'well, you can top yourself if you don't like your circumstances'.

So it's not really about the natural right to kill yourself. Of course you can do that if you want. It's about the state approving it. It's essentially washing its hands clean of extremely vulnerable people and dire social conditions.

The state already 'approves' of a person killing themselves because of their conditions, ever since they abolished the law that made suicide illegal (in the 60s, I think).

While I agree that the scenario you suggest could happen, I don't see that as a reason for why what I suggest should be stopped. We should be holding any govt to account for *everything* about our freedoms - including a right not to be shat on by the rich - rather than giving up freedoms because we can't be bothered to demand what else should be ours.

Taking your approach just entrenches all the issues, allowing the rich to impose harsh conditions without challenge.

[worm]

The state already 'approves' of a person killing themselves because of their conditions, ever since they abolished the law that made suicide illegal (in the 60s, I think).

While I agree that the scenario you suggest could happen, I don't see that as a reason for why what I suggest should be stopped. We should be holding any govt to account for *everything* about our freedoms - including a right not to be shat on by the rich - rather than giving up freedoms because we can't be bothered to demand what else should be ours.

Taking your approach just entrenches all the issues, allowing the rich to impose harsh conditions without challenge.

Edited August 31, 2012 by worm

[eFestivals]

These are all conditional variables that psychology would seek to examine in relation to the outcome of suicide.

all of which aids no one. Only the self knows what is the right choice for the self.

[worm]

all of which aids no one. Only the self knows what is the right choice for the self.

Edited August 31, 2012 by worm

[eFestivals]

You can find happiness in slavery Neil. You can come to accept your fate. Would you consider the Jews of the concentration camps that were made to accept their fate fully autonomous?

I think you put too much faith in the notion of a fully autonomous self, free to make rational choices at all times.

SOME people might find happiness in slavery. Not me, I guarantee. The issue which causes that is what they've been taught in the first place, that they're subservient beings that have to do what others tell them rather than being told they are free to make their own choices.

And so it the view you're putting forwards which brings about their enslavement, as it becomes self-fulfilling. Freedom from enslavement comes from refusing to accept enslavement in just the same self-fulfilling way.

[worm]

SOME people might find happiness in slavery. Not me, I guarantee.

[eFestivals]

I'm not on about you. Though neither you or I have been in that condition, so we can't very well say.

I didn't think you were on about me.

And while I take your point about not knowing how we might act until in a particular position, the particular starting position for a person is relevant too - and Jews at the point of the Nazis had been told for millennia that they were substandard humans and so their starting position for resistance to what was being put upon them was (thru no fault of their own) far poorer than my own.

I don't feel particularly confident that I'd jump in front of a bus to save my child (tho I of course like to hope that I would), but I do feel pretty confident about this one, because of where my head is at in regard to things like this. But the only way to find out for sure is by going thru it - so I hope i never find out.

Otherwise known as 'reinforcement'. Indeed. And having the state sanction the right to suicide is yet more reinforcement.

Nope. There's a big difference between the state sanctioning a sovereign right to personal choices for the self that effects a person's whole attitude towards everything, and putting a focus on one particular negative (by its nature) 'right' that encompasses.

One is purely negative, whilst the other is purely positive (even whilst including the naturally negative as a right to suicide). There is nothing negative in rightfully standing up for yourself.

[worm]

And while I take your point about not knowing how we might act until in a particular position, the particular starting position for a person is relevant too - and Jews at the point of the Nazis had been told for millennia that they were substandard humans and so their starting position for resistance to what was being put upon them was (thru no fault of their own) far poorer than my own.

Edited August 31, 2012 by worm

[eFestivals]

It has the same effect

different things cause different effects.

who are you to say what is positive and negative?

So you were saying that Jews sucking up to Nazis in those extreme circumstances was a neutral thing? PMSL.

[worm]

So you were saying that Jews sucking up to Nazis in those extreme circumstances was a neutral thing? PMSL.

[eFestivals]

No. I'm saying that you can't say that they're ''sucking up'' to the Nazis if you base your argument on an autonomous self. They chose to behave as they did, if you want to ignore the conditional restraints involved in choice.

Sophie's Choice is a good example here.

They 'chose' to act as they did only because they did not have free choice of actions.

Everything about that ceases to be relevant when the very purpose is for people to have (in regard to the self) a free choice of actions.

[worm]

They 'chose' to act as they did only because they did not have free choice of actions.

[eFestivals]

Much like the person facing suicide, no?

nope, nothing like it.

And that's what I just said. The only way you can have true autonomy of self is if you remove all of the conditions of the self, which is a complete fallacy. The self is always constrained to a condition from which it makes choices. Choice itself is a conditional force.

To steal your words: The only way you can have true autonomy of thought is if you remove all of the restrictions on your thought.

You believe it to be falacy because you don't believe it possible for someone to rightmindly wish to end their life. That prejudice supplies you with the answer to the questions you ask of your prejudice.

[worm]

nope, nothing like it.

[eFestivals]

How can you say that someone has autonomy of selfhood if you conceed that it is always subject to conditions?

because those conditions aren't the controlling factor. Automony is.

A person can be controlled by their conditions, or can control their conditions. Which it is is purely a matter of intellectual approach.