The stubbornness you're showing in refusing to even just move on from the conversation is part of the rigidity I've seen throughout your posts.

I won't go into the rigidity of your so-called nuanced position.

The way out is to see that rigid thinking will not answer — unenlightened

I see your line of thinking as just as rigid as you see mine. Like I said, we'll have to agree to disagree as it does not seem to me we will reach a consensus any time soon.

I suppose you mean even in cases when the patient is underage and probably not the best judge of her own interests.


Oh well. I think we'll just have to agree to disagree. We're going in circles and I'm not sure I see a way out of it.

How would you think if this was about cancer patients? Would you allow a patient to die without interfering in their cancer because the treatment is "only" a 50/50 chance and chemo sucks?

I think I'm trying to be polite and meet you half-way in a theoretical discussion... So I suppose you could call it a negotiation. But it really doesn't matter what percentage we settle on, and focusing on that is merely a red herring. The odds are > 0 and therefore my argument still stands.

Key being "maybe" she won't recover. But maybe she will. Let's say it's 50/50. If she lives she has a shot at a good life, if she dies, she does not.

Hey, you made the analogy, not me. Better own up to the implications thereof.

My comparison to the death rates still stands: you have a 1 in 10 chance of dying from anorexia, even with care, anywhere in the world. Would you say a car with the same odds is adequate? I would not. I would say we need to get our acts together and stop all this senseless dying and suffering. But hey, that's just me. I don't settle for a 10% death rate.

3 years is not a very long time when you're talking about the rest of your life. And recovery is a long process. It takes years.

How can I make this clear?
She dies, there is a 0% chance of recovery and a good life.
She lives, there is a chance (I would say very good, you may say very poor, so let's settle on 50%) that she will live a good life.

0 versus something. It's not rocket surgery what is the better option.

We do in the case of children, so the only question that remains is what other cases can be included. Someone who is underage and in psychological distress, posing an acute danger to themselves, falls into that category.

I do not see how a "time of need" has an expiration date.

Obviously there are people here who would have preferred the young woman step in front of a moving train or tractor trailer to end her misery.

It is their right to feel that way.

I just disagree. — Frank Apisa

You purposefully misunderstand us. No surprise there.

There are simply those of us who wish this young lady were ALIVE and being TREATED and given the chance at HAPPINESS, instead of just giving up on her and letting her die a horrible, slow death because that's what's most convenient for people like you. Having to think hard and well about what is best for another human being in distress is hard work, and you apparently don't have the guts to do it. You'd rather abandon them in their time of need.

This is a very pessimistic characterisation. My Skoda Octavia is not woefully inadequate simply because the ultimate car still has to be invented. It's entirely adequate but I won't win an F1 race with it. Most therapies that have been developed help, even if they don't cure every mental disease. — Benkei

We're talking about human lives here. Not cars. Our standards are, and should be different for those two things.

Anorexia has a mortality rate of about 10%. That's one in ten. If I were to stick with your car analogy, how would you feel about the adequacy your Skoda if you had a one in ten chance of dying in it?

I think in a situation of crisis, one would tend to intervene, but the length of time in this case seems to indicate that many things have been tried and have failed. So it is not a question of intervening or not, so much as a question of stopping intervening when many interventions have failed utterly. — unenlightened

Maybe if we were talking about an adult with a fully formed brain.

Noa suffered from various kinds of mental disturbances during her teen years. The brain is undergoing a massive overhaul of the very structure of its synapses during this time up until the age of 25. It's absolutely impossible to say with any certainty that she wouldn't have recovered, if her brain had been given the time to form fully. She was robbed of the chance at recovery.

For a shockingly large number of people, mental illness flares up at this time, trauma-induced or not. Some never recover, but most do. We can't allow all depressed teens to commit suicide, just because they cannot see the light at the end of the tunnel.

As it is, the Dutch health care system is one of the best in the world and absolutely free for children up to 18 years old. — Benkei

That's great, but I hope you do realize that even their mental health care system is woefully inadequate. We just don't have a very good understanding of how the brain functions, and thus what happens when it malfunctions, and thus how best to fix it. And that's the same globally.

Even for adults suffering from depression euthanasia is often not open to them and results in a significant number of grisly suicides. I would like it to be better available for people who mentally suffer unbearably without any chance of improvement but I have no idea how realistic that is without it becoming to freely available. — Benkei

Before we entertain options for assisted suicide for the mentally ill, shouldn't we invest more time, energy, and resources in providing care and treatment for those people to recover? As it stands, we just have an abysmal mental health care system.

I really think most people don't give a hoot and recognize the perfect normalcy of using whatever bathroom when you have small children.

The past week my family and I have been traveling. The baby hates being changed in strange environments, so it often becomes a two person job. Nobody cared. Also, our choice which bathroom to use depended often on availability and cleanliness. So if I was alone with the babe and the men's room was better, I went in there. Vice versa for my husband. Nobody ever cared. In fact, my husband got a lot of ladies congratulating him on being such a good daddy. I got a lot of men reminiscing about the days when their kids were so cute (apparently they lose that sometime in the teen years, lol).

Anyway, just my personal anecdotes here, but I assume in a world where most people end up having kids, it's just really not that big of a deal.

noted that it related to the feelings and motivation of the actor, and not the feelings of the recipient of their action. — unenlightened

It does not relate to the feelings of the actor, as much as the consequences for the receiver. The consequences in either case couldn't be more different.

I can acknowledge that it may be a triggering eveng for a previous rape victim. I do not think that makes it tantamount to rape itself, though.

I do wish you'd acknowledge the very basic, and most important difference that rape is ultimately just a harm whereas forced feeding is ultimately a life-saving measure, and therefore to the benefit of the patient, even if it causes some harm in the process. Just like surgery is not the same as being stabbed by a mugger.

Your ad hominems don't impress me, Frank. But it's clear you're too upset to continue this conversation productively. Perhaps we can continue when you've gained some perspective.

If you believe that your value that death is the worst possible harm can be deduced from other, lower-level values then show your reasoning and we can discuss it. — andrewk

I already showed it. It's your turn. I guess you got nothing.

The analogy is appropriate to the feelings of the person the receiving end, rather than the feelings of the performer of the act. Interesting that you seem to regard the feelings and motivation of the rapist or medic more significant that those of the victim/patient. But from their pov both are violations of the body by forcible penetration of an intimate orifice against one's will, and in such a case, forced feeding would almost certainly be experienced as a third rape. — unenlightened

You conveniently neglect the main difference I pointed out: rape is only to harm the victim. Force-feeding is to save them. It couldn't be a more wholly different scenario.

But perhaps you think oral vaccines are rape too.

But NKBJ will not be able to acknowledge it. — Frank Apisa

You are unable, I think, to acknowledge, that a person can be unable to think clearly. Perhaps you are in favor of letting children choose to use heroin as well? Or I suppose you would advocate for getting rid of all care facilities for those with mental disabilities?

You, very simply, are not being empathetic to the various states of mind that can befall a person and are superimposing your current ability to make autonomous decisions on others.

And "death" is a decision that each individual should be able to make for him/herself...without the intrusion of people like you. — Frank Apisa

IF that person is in full control of their mental capacities, the case is more convincing. However, not when we're talking about a child and a mentally ill person who is likely unable to think clearly. In that case we have the overriding duty to save that person from themselves.

Perhaps the question about the relative severity of such harms is so fundamental that it cannot be reasoned out. — andrewk

All that talk about insisting on making arguments, and then you refuse to do it yourself and just throw assertions around that you can't back up. Oh well. I repeat what I said above: you're at a loss.

Are you actually going to put forward an argument to support your claim that we should force feed people, or are you going to content yourself with one-line jibes? — andrewk

I'm sorry my argument went beyond you. But I'll spell it out for you, again, if that's what you require.

Force-feeding is possibly a minor, temporary harm that results in life, the possibility of recovery, hope, joy, and everything else good life has to offer. Some suffering, yes, but also the good stuff.

Death is the ultimate harm. The end. Lights out. No chance for nothing anymore. No choices anymore. Do not pass GO, do not collect $200.

There is nothing to argue against. You have only made a claim, and your only support for it is the word 'clearly'. — andrewk

Clearly, you are just at a loss. Better luck next time.

All I can say to this is that I very strongly disagree with this, and it seems many others on here do too, so at least you should concede that the 'clearly' in your claim is inappropriate. — andrewk

Well, that's not much of an argument, so I guess you just have nothing else to add.

For anybody favouring the forceful intervention route, I suggest you watch the scene in the recent movie Suffragette where a hunger-striking suffragette is force-fed in prison.

The rape analogy is neither accidental, nor imaginary. — andrewk

If the choice is force feeding or death, clearly force-feeding is the better alternative. The rape analogy is a total mischaracterization because rape is about hurting someone for one's own gratification. Force-feeding is perhaps aggressive and painful, but it is solely for the benefit of the receiver.

But I suppose you would just let thousands of anorexics die, despite the fact that many recover and are thankful to have been given another chance at life.

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.

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.

This is exactly why logicians came up with the fallacy of division and the fallacy of composition. Just fyi.

https://retrorenovation.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/1955-dollhouse-bathroom.jpg

Yes, I think it's murder. Or at least some form of manslaughter. It's not that they stood idly by while she took her own life. They assisted her with it, which means that they took part in the process.

She was a minor, and thus not old enough to be making literal life anf death decisions for herself.

She had a history and ongoing acute psychological issues including anorexia and ptsd, thus further not likely able to make competent decisions for herself.

The trauma only happened 3 years ago. That's an extraordinarily short amount of time to decide your life will NEVER be worth living again.

Additionally, I support euthanasia generally only in cases that have set, demonstrable, and calcuable outcomes. Like cancer victims who have less than a year to live and will only suffer in that time. Mental illness is too unpredictable and little understood to make anything close to that determination.

I don't think anyone involved should face legal repercussions, because it does seem like they thought they were doing the right thing. But the law needs to change dramatically and asap to protect further victims.

If it were fundamentally wrong then we would not be able to do it — 420mindfulness

It would logically follow that nothing humans ever do is wrong, since then we couldn't do it. So murder, rape, theft, etc are all a-okay now. Got it.

The act of killing an another for sustenance is natural throughout the natural kingdom, including in the plant kingdom, and therefore does not fall into the realm of ethics. — 420mindfulness

Rape occurs througout the animal kingdom, and thus is natural. Do you condone it?

Can you ethically justify eating meat? — Kaz1983

Nope. And so I don't. I really don't get why people have such a hard time with this whole issue.

If you think that ideas are only had by humans and you conclude from that that they cannot be anything other than what we know about them by virtue of having them, you are ruling out the possibility that animals or advanced alien species have ideas. — Janus

I said:

They cannot exist apart from cogent beings. — NKBJ

Animals are, to varying degrees, cogent beings, and advanced alien life probably are as well.

Yup

I do my best :blush:

And that, I swear, is my last word, for at least the next two days, as I have other duties pressing, and really can't repeating the same thing over and over. — Wayfarer

Whew! That's a relief.

You are just repeating the same contradictory stuff over and over. You want to claim science is inherently inadequate, but somehow also claim that it supports your view. Any time someone here refutes your position on the former, you flee to the latter and vice versa. That's called being a moving target and it's bad philosophy.

:wink:

But the same can be said of the critics. — Wayfarer

I don't see the connection.

This apparently is being validated in numerous studies. It overturns what had been a pretty hard and fast dogma in neo-Darwinian orthodoxy, namely, that 'acquired characteristics' (let alone memories!) can't be inherited. But now it appears that they might be. So if there's some way that 'memories can be transmitted between generations', then at least there's an analogy or metaphor for the possibility of this past-life memory phenomenon. — Wayfarer

You're conflating our growing understanding of how DNA, RNA, certain viruses in our cells, and possibly even the good bacteria in your entire body, all contribute to how your body works, including your brain. We've known for a long time now that certain environmental stimuli can activate, deactivate, and alter any of those components for generations to come. It has nothing to do with spirits or souls.

There is an obvious conflict between such beliefs and scientific materialism. — Wayfarer

I think there is a new consensus emerging against this very idea, but the fact that you state it so baldly is very helpful, thank you. So let's just reflect on that before considering what that might be. — Wayfarer

And there you go contradicting yourself again.

So, well aware of the criticisms, but again, I don't find it persuasive, in light of the volume of data. — Wayfarer

The size of a pile of trash doesn't magically turn the trash into gold.

Oh, and by the bye, his Wiki page alone suggests that a number of scientists took him seriously as an academic, but ultimately rejected his conclusions. So, your absurd claim that scientists and philosophers are unable to understand or open their minds to such phenomena is just that: absurd.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ian_Stevenson#Criticism