People's pain tolerances vary but let's say I dropped a feather on your head, does it warrant assisted suicide?

Schzophr
25
↪Frank Apisa


People's pain tolerances vary but let's say I dropped a feather on your head, does it warrant assisted suicide? — Schzophr

YOU do not get to decide what is or is not painful for anyone but yourself. Schzophr.

Can you finally get that?

Suppose, as you supposed, you were raped...and I or someone else decided for you that the pain of that even was too much to bear and that you should commit suicide.

What would you think of that?

Lemme help you with this, because you may not be able to deal with it rationally: Nobody but YOU should be making decisions about that kind of thing for you.

Your argument that it was not painful enough for her to want to die...is nonsense. It is not your decision to make.

no it honestly is. Pain is rooted in logic.

Schzophr
26
↪Frank Apisa
no it honestly is. Pain is rooted in logic.
3 minutes ago
Reply — Schzophr

I guess there will always be people like you...people who think they set the standards for what is good or bad, moral or immoral, right or wrong.

Best to deal with the likes of you by laughing at you. So...thanks. I needed a laugh right now. My game today was adequate, but not more than that. I sank my fair share of putts...and hit almost every fairway...but after the 18th hole, I was giving money...not collecting.

Pain, like weight, is rooted in logic.

Are you sure you don't live too easily?
Are you sure some people aren't just weak?

Not referencing victim in the OP here but the rape case likely didn't warrant suicide, a doctor's weakness for allowing it.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/jun/05/noa-pothoven-netherlands-girl-not-legally-euthanised-died-at-home?CMP=fb_gu&utm_medium=Social&utm_source=Facebook&fbclid=IwAR0do-CWff3xCVwdmQzk5Eh1ktN6Ww1Upg_1hVxZnkorWGFERn-6bMrzQPk#Echobox=1559746175

I'm suggesting (as per my original post) than any form of severe mental pain can warrant assisted
suicide, not just PTSD from rape. But I am also noting that rape especially, carries severe mental trauma-much more than any other violent crime. This needs to be noted when addressing the problem of rape, including its severe under-reported(ness), and often lenient sentences in cases of domestic violence/sexual harassment.

To echo what said, what gives you the right to determine an absolute threshold for pain tolerance, especially that resultant of rape...have you ever been raped? If you had, you would know that rape doesn't just go away, even if you are "clean and healthy"-it perverts your life and choices and decisions, it forever scars you in very subtle but powerful ways. Even for those who do manage to move on, and many do, not everyone can, it depends on the situation and the support systems people have in place.

If I was raped and the next day I was completely clean and physically healthy, I could live with it. — Schzophr

The only thing separating yourself from suicide after being raped is a hot shower?

In essence it is just displeasing sex, isn't more so than traumatic memories, and these memories can be made scarce if not physically scarring or repeated to cause more of a 'shellshock'.

Are you saying the shock of rape is so bad it can warrant suicide?

If you think stigma attached to the event is causing trouble then perhaps people are more the problem.

If she was in pain enough to still want to die three years later, and to actually go through with it, all the way to the point where its not something you talk to people about in order to get them to see you a certain way and something you actually do - then, I don't see anything wrong with it. She was 17, sure, but it's hard to imagine she'd feel different at 18.

The big problem is that people who are quick to see this as [government something] run amok are very good at spotting [government somethings] run amok and not very good at thinking about how to actually help people suffering like this in some meaningful way, preventative, or palliative. 'I may be resistant to pc/sjw discussions of 'rape culture' but I'll defend to my death your right to not be able to decide how to deal with the consequences of it if your way of dealing with it seems to favor the ideology of the wrong political side.' The emphasis, note, isn't that she was raped; it was that she was allowed to kill herself. Stories about rape, while sad, aren't worth starting a conversation about. Those conversations are always a little histrionic anyway. It's when people start killing themselves over it, that the real danger becomes apparent.

Some people post threads about trauma and how to deal with it. Others only care about trauma when it results in the greatest trauma of all - liberal government overreach. Who cares more about the experience of the person at the center of this?

In essence it is just sex with someone you don't like — Schzophr

Demonstrably untrue. I've had sex with multiple people I don't like & I have never been raped.

Some people post threads about trauma and how to deal with it. Others only care about trauma when it results in the greatest trauma of all - liberal government overreach. Who cares more about the experience of the person at the center of this? — csalisbury

How to generically deal with trauma isn't a philosophical question.

Maybe, but that's a pretty stringent insistence on topic hygiene I don't usually see crop up. It's not exclusively philosophical, but philosophy has a part to play, and that characterizes quite a few threads on here, including many of both mine and yours. Besides, the OP ends with a question that is legalistic, not philosophical.

In about 10 weeks, I'll be 83. — Frank Apisa

I'll be only 73 this fall, but I'll forget when your birthday is coming up, so happy birthday now.

Youth is often revealed in posts, but old age doesn't seem to be. I'd have not even suspected you of being an octogenarian. Glad you're healthy and feeling good. Elderly healthy brains can deploy as much supple mind as younger people -- maybe more so. At least, IF they are a mind too. Some people get rigid in old age, but I think a brief history of their cases will reveal that they were getting rigid for a long time. As we have been, so we will be.

I've never been sexually abused or raped, so I do not know from personal experience how much trauma that can cause. Still, over a lifetime many of us are subjected to quite real traumatic experiences and their consequences with which we have to deal. I can be more philosophical about this than an adolescent (one would hope). I do believe there is a social element to trauma: How people react to one's trauma can aggravate or ameliorate it. Denying that a trauma occurred won't help, and neither will dilating on the awfulness of the trauma.

Getting good mental health care is essential; it might be a psychiatrist; it might be a parent; it might be a therapist; it might be peers, etc. And conversely, the same people can provide unhelpful care. One of the supposed benefits of a strong religious tradition is that it gives a traumatised person more beneficial contexts in which to place their suffering. (Of course, bad religion makes sexual trauma worse.). A strong secular ethical tradition can do the same thing too (positively and negatively).

It sounds like some of the agents that should have been on hand and helpful were either missing or were not helpful. Suicidal wishes (or euthanasia) should not be acceptable responses to trauma.

Bitter Crank
7.7k
↪Hanover
↪csalisbury
I've never been sexually abused or raped, so I do not know from personal experience how much trauma that can cause. Still, over a lifetime many of us are subjected to quite real traumatic experiences and their consequences with which we have to deal. I can be more philosophical about this than an adolescent (one would hope). I do believe there is a social element to trauma: How people react to one's trauma can aggravate or ameliorate it. Denying that a trauma occurred won't help, and neither will dilating on the awfulness of the trauma.

Getting good mental health care is essential; it might be a psychiatrist; it might be a parent; it might be a therapist; it might be peers, etc. And conversely, the same people can provide unhelpful care. One of the supposed benefits of a strong religious tradition is that it gives a traumatised person more beneficial contexts in which to place their suffering. (Of course, bad religion makes sexual trauma worse.). A strong secular ethical tradition can do the same thing too (positively and negatively).

It sounds like some of the agents that should have been on hand and helpful were either missing or were not helpful. Suicidal wishes (or euthanasia) should not be acceptable responses to trauma.
22 minutes ago — Bitter Crank

Bingo.

But always with the notion in mind that IF a person chooses suicide...and does not deviate from that...there should be a way for willing professionals to give aid in making the suicide as unmessy as possible. We can allow suicide with dignity...and still respect all the considerations you mentioned in your reply, BC.

I agree about those benefits, ideally. But the reality is that those benefits are missing. One could also say that she shouldn't have been raped. I would also agree with that. But what actually happened?

If the proper help was missing, surely it's more fruitful to focus on that, rather than the fact she was allowed to kill herself. How do we help? But the focus has not been on that.

It would be crazier to ignore the literally of hundreds of other cites simply because Fox reported the same thing too. — Hanover

Since nobody has suggested we do that, I can't see the relevance of this comment.

they all use the term "euthanize." — Hanover

No they don't. In fact the Independent's report is quite explicit about the uncertainty over whether the suicide was assisted.

If she was in pain enough to still want to die three years later, and to actually go through with it, all the way to the point where its not something you talk to people about in order to get them to see you a certain way and something you actually do - then, I don't see anything wrong with it. She was 17, sure, but it's hard to imagine she'd feel different at 18. — csalisbury

It's hard to imagine she wouldn't. Or that she actually didn't have changing moods and ideas and plans throughout those three years.

As I stated before: mental illness is too unpredictable, not well understood, and variable to be the basis for something like euthanasia or condoned suicide.

What we DO know is that teens experience many psychological issues that do pass, in part because of the major overhaul of the neurons and synapses that happens in the brain and is not completed until around the age of 25.

I'm, quite honestly, sickened that people could just stand idly by while a young, thoughtful lady killed herself.

I'm, quite honestly, sickened that people could just stand idly by while a young, thoughtful lady killed herself. — NKBJ

What are you suggesting they should have done, that they did not already do? Force-fed her?

I'm, quite honestly, sickened that people could just stand idly by while a young, thoughtful lady killed herself.
1h — NKBJ

Ok

What are you suggesting they should have done, that they did not already do? Force-fed her? — andrewk

Yes, obviously. They have feeding tubes and IVs that they use for anorexics.

Maybe, but that's a pretty stringent insistence on topic hygiene I don't usually see crop up. It's not exclusively philosophical, but philosophy has a part to play, and that characterizes quite a few threads on here, including many of both mine and yours. Besides, the OP ends with a question that is legalistic, not philosophical. — csalisbury

I took your post to question my motives, as if I truly don't care about the traumatized, but I'm just more interested in promoting my brand of conservatism. My point is that I'm interested in the philosophical component of this issue and that's why the focus is on the ethical issue, not on my expressions of sympathy for the young girl and her family. While the latter is humane and appropriate in other contexts, it's not part of this discussion.

Anyway, all of this is an aside and ad hom.

What are you suggesting they should have done, that they did not already do? Force-fed her? — andrewk

The problem rests in trying to distinguish her wishes from her current illness. Her 17 year old mental state could well be temporary, but her decision while now weighed down with trauma will be permanent. I would impose whatever necessary to keep her alive at this point at least. If this were a 40 year old with decades of pain, a better case might be made to allow her to die.

The problem rests in trying to distinguish her wishes from her current illness. Her 17 year old mental state could well be temporary, but her decision while now weighed down with trauma will be permanent. I would impose whatever necessary to keep her alive at this point at least. If this were a 40 year old with decades of pain, a better case might be made to allow her to die. — Hanover

But now you are not talking about euthanasia at all, but about forcible treatment against one's will on the grounds presumably of mental incompetence.

Which is a bit off topic.

But now you are not talking about euthanasia at all, but about forcible treatment against one's will on the grounds presumably of mental incompetence.

Which is a bit off topic. — unenlightened

Yup...a bit off topic.

And a whole bunch of audacity, pretentiousness, pomposity, and sticking his nose where it does not belong.

I'm more just rolling with the punches as it appears she might not have been euthanized. I can't seem to get a good real life example, but must resort to armchair hypotheticals it seems.

My position is had she been euthanized or had she been allowed to die without active assistance, I'd be opposed because I believe the illness should be terminal before such decisions are permitted. That would mean there'd be a duty to intervene in some cases.

And a whole bunch of audacity, pretentiousness, pomposity, and sticking his nose where it does not belong. — Frank Apisa

Generally laws apply to other people too, which allows us to stick our noses into the affairs of other's. What you allow your daughter to do and what she decides to do might be my business, as what I do might be hers.

When did the script flip where I became the proponent of government intervention and everyone else became libertarians?

When did the script flip where I became the proponent of government intervention and everyone else became libertarians? — Hanover

(shakes head.)

Hanover
4.6k

And a whole bunch of audacity, pretentiousness, pomposity, and sticking his nose where it does not belong. — Frank Apisa


Generally laws apply to other people too, which allows us to stick our noses into the affairs of other's. What you allow your daughter to do and what she decides to do might be my business, as what I do might be hers. — Hanover

Bullshit.

Anyway...I do not have a daughter...or a son for that matter. Early on I decided I would not be a good parent and opted not to father any progeny.

If I did have kids, though, I would treat them as I do others who are not my kids...I would allow them to make decisions on issues like this on their own and keep my goddam nose out of what is NOT MY BUSINESS.

When did the script flip where I became the proponent of government intervention and everyone else became libertarians?

Beats me. I loathe Libertarianism...and barely tolerate libertarianism.

I just happen to think on issues like wanting to live or die..on assisted suicide...or wanting to abort or not abort...the decisions are difficult enough without others intervening unless invited.

It occurs to me though that I have been over the top in response to your wanting to intervene without invitation. I apologize...although if you persist, I probably will do it more.