this post was submitted on 16 May 2024
455 points (97.9% liked)

World News

32285 readers
827 users here now

News from around the world!

Rules:

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Objection@lemmy.ml 8 points 5 months ago (31 children)

Don't really agree with this. If you look at it on an individual level, there's a case for it, but on a social level, it's dangerous. Individualist societies look for individual solutions even if the problem is social. There are problems that can't be solved with any sort of medication, therapy, etc, because the cause of the problem isn't with the individual. It's impossible to know for sure if any kind of social change would fix her problems, but if suicide is simply the go-to answer when such a problem is encountered, then we will never know. And once this becomes normalized and people start accepting it as a viable solution, then it's going to be a lot harder to materially improve things for people in these situations. Often it's only when people see that there is no individualist solution that they start thinking in terms of systemic changes, and if there's any kind of "solution," no matter how horrid it is, they'll turn to that first. I don't want to create a future where, "I've tried everything I can to fix myself and I still feel like shit," is met with a polite and friendly, "Oh, well have you considered killing yourself?"

Suicide is violence. Self-harm is harm. It's nonsense to describe a process that kills you as "safe." I understand that many people view it terms of rights or personal wills because those are prevailing ways to look at things, in individualist cultures. But life is inherently valuable and if someone thinks otherwise about their own, then they are wrong. I would make an exception for someone with severe, incurable physical pain, but while mental pain is just as real and valid as physical pain, the way it functions is more complex, and so I'm skeptical that it could be declared "incurable" to a sufficient standard, especially if solutions aren't limited to the individual level.

The fact is that we ought to be striving to accommodate as widely diverse minds as possible. Both because it's the right thing to do, and because diversity is valuable, and people who see things differently may notice or understand things that others don't. If the diversity of minds starts to narrow, I'm concerned that it will continue to narrow until neurodiverse people are effectively eliminated from society, or be isolated without community, as more and more pressure builds against anyone who doesn't fit the mold of a productive worker.

[–] iAvicenna@lemmy.world 6 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (3 children)

What makes you think that severe chronic depression is more curable than severe chronic pain? maybe within a year someone will come up with a new drug or therapy that cures certain types of severe chronic pain? Should we force people to endure the pain in the basis of this possibility?

Or what makes you think this woman's problem is social? What if she has some genetic or neural predisposition to having such problems? Should we deny her request on the basis that normally mental health issues are social?

You are talking about accommodating neurodiversity but your view of life and mental health conditions is extremely black and white.

[–] Objection@lemmy.ml 3 points 5 months ago (2 children)

Mental health is socially defined to a very large extent. One of the ways that we evaluate a person's mental health is whether their issues interfere with an ability to live a "normal" life, which includes providing for themselves. Well, a person's ability to provide for themselves can vary drastically based on external circumstances, like how rich they are or what social services they have access to.

It's my belief that it's rare for evolution to screw up. Of course, sometimes it does, but I'd argue that many mental illnesses are the result of one's mind being equipped for a different set of circumstances than the one they're in. In some cases, there's clear evidence that this is the case, but in other cases it's more difficult to prove.

I just don't believe we should give up on a person just because they ask us to. If a friend came up to me and asked me to help them kill themselves because of a mental illness, I would do everything I could to find an alternative solution and talk them down from it. I feel like that's the normal response anyone would have, and people are treating it differently just because a state said that it's ok.

[–] CorvidCawder@sh.itjust.works 2 points 5 months ago (1 children)

It's my belief that it's rare for evolution to screw up.

That's not how it works, I'm pretty sure... Mutations will have random effects and the species evolves based on characteristics being selected for based on better survivability, reproductive effectiveness, etc.

I would do everything I could to find an alternative solution and talk them down from it.

I've read your other messages and it seems that you're thoroughly convinced that this wasn't the case here. I suggest that you get a bit more context about this whole situation, as it has been a long path of trying multiple treatments and approaches, without any success. So it's not even remotely close to what you suggest here. No Futurama suicide chambers here.

[–] Objection@lemmy.ml -1 points 5 months ago

That’s not how it works, I’m pretty sure… Mutations will have random effects and the species evolves based on characteristics being selected for based on better survivability, reproductive effectiveness, etc.

That's why I said that it's rare for evolution to screw up, not that it's impossible.

I’ve read your other messages and it seems that you’re thoroughly convinced that this wasn’t the case here.

I've made a lot of comments but few of them have been about the details of this specific case, I'm not sure which ones you're referring to.

load more comments (27 replies)