Society´s right to intervene

[Jopo1980]

OK, personally I have been dragged forcibly to the mental hospital 3 times for Psychotic Depression. My opinion was never consulted, a single duty doctor just ordered my incarceration until I was seen fit to return to society. I never thought I was deserving of such treatment, but still they did it. "For my own protection" the paper said. So in this case the society decided that I was unfit to decide on my own matters and took away the most sacred thing, THE RIGHT OF SELF-DETERMINATION in order to protect that which is even more sacred in the society´s view, life, although my life was never at risk in my own view and I think I know best.

 

When it comes to deciding my own matters, I think I can do a better job at it even in a psychotic state than a panel of mental health professionals or anyone for that matter. Others may give me advice, but whether or not I follow it is my own decision and that power of decision was taken away from me.

 

So, this debate is political, social, medical, legal etc.

 

Does the society have the right to intervene in a persons own affairs even if the person is a danger to him/herself?

 

As per my right-to-die standpoint, I say no, the society has no right to intervene under ANY circumstances, even in life threatening situations. The persons right to self determination MUST be upheld, even in cases where the person may be mentally unstable or unfit. Intervening to save OTHERS lives, such as murders etc. I wholeheartedly support. You have the right (under Finnish law) to decide on life and death on your own part, although the society can and will use force to try and prevent you from using that power, but NOT others. In other countries however suicide is ILLEGAL, such is the case in the US and UK. Obviously these countries have a long way to go in human rights.

 

 

If you hold the position that the society has the right to intervene, then please elaborate as to WHEN? Under which circumstances?

Also please state your position as to WHO should decide on these matters? Judges, medical staff etc. etc.?

 

So, let the debate begin.

[marharth]

Lives are not the only thing.

 

If someone is causing harm, society should intervene. Don't know why you only put options for life.

 

As for the checkboxes, I voted for threat to life, domestic violence, and violence to animals. A physical medical condition could be too wide of a range to agree on that, same with the mental condition.

 

I like when society intervenes sometimes, but I don't like how things are handled so I voted screw them.

[Jopo1980]

So Marharth, you do not believe that the society should intervene if you have a heart attack (a physical medical condition)? I support you wholeheartedly in your view that the society should not intervene in a mental medical condition, but medical professionals would probably disagree on that with us, as you cannot have mentally unfit people running around free possibly causing harm to themselves let alone others.

 

I voted that the society has the right to intervene when other lives are at stake. Reasons for intervention would be medical condition physical, domestic violence and violence to animals, NOT threat to life or a medical condition mental. I also voted screw them, although some may rush to remind me that the society´s aim was to help me during my medical condition. I don´t see any reason to be grateful for being locked up against my will, being forced to eat medication etc. etc.

[JimboUK]

By society do you mean the state?

 

If someone is threatening to take the life of another or harm them in some way then yes of course it should intervene. As it should with medical assistance. If someone is damaging themselves and they are not suffering from a mental illness of some kind then no it shouldn't. I think it's a very complex subject that does need to be dealt with on a case by case basis taking into account personal liberty, protection of people from wrong doers and the likely effect on wider society. We could debate actual examples but there are too many variables for generalisation of the subject.

[marharth]

So Marharth, you do not believe that the society should intervene if you have a heart attack (a physical medical condition)? I support you wholeheartedly in your view that the society should not intervene in a mental medical condition, but medical professionals would probably disagree on that with us, as you cannot have mentally unfit people running around free possibly causing harm to themselves let alone others.

 

I voted that the society has the right to intervene when other lives are at stake. Reasons for intervention would be medical condition physical, domestic violence and violence to animals, NOT threat to life or a medical condition mental. I also voted screw them, although some may rush to remind me that the society´s aim was to help me during my medical condition. I don´t see any reason to be grateful for being locked up against my will, being forced to eat medication etc. etc.

A heart attack, yes society should intervene. With health problems that are not urgent, society should not intervene.

[Kuraikiba]

Is this just a loophole for you to be able to make another suicide thread, by any chance?

[Jopo1980]

No Kuraikiba, this is not a loophole to make another suicide thread.

 

Suicide is one of the instances where the society currently feels obliged to intervene and which I oppose as per my right-to-die standpoint, but that is just one example of many situations of social intervention.

 

If your house is on fire you are grateful for the fire brigade to be there, but if you raise a drunken row and the police show up to drag you away to cool your heels, then will you say thank you to them afterwards?

[Kuraikiba]

I can't be drunk. I'm 18...? Besides, since I would have no control over myself (being wasted hypothetically), I'd appreciate being stopped from something I might regret.

[Balagor]

Weather you act like a loony, walk a tightrope in 300 feet blindfolded, or drive a car with 120 mh when only 60 is allowed, you will be brougt to cease your doing. Authorities will stop you because you can harm your self, and it will cost the taxpayers. By you unstable doing you can (unattended) harm others, either physically or/and mentally. By your doing you can frighten others, and cause them traumatic experiences. Thus it IS necessary to stop/lock up people for a certain period of time when they are the cause of danger, disturbance to them selves and/or society.

[Jopo1980]

We live in a democratic society which means that the majority decides what is allowed, what is good and what is normal. If you are part of that majority, life is good, but if you belong to some minority group, then it´s not so good.

 

What right does the majority have to impose its rules on individuals who disagree?

 

Take base jumpers for example. People who seek thrill and adrenaline highs by jumping off high cliffs and buildings with a parachute. The jumps are so low that the parachute barely has time to open and so there is a life threatening risk involved every time, but then again so it is with normal para jumps aswell. For its dangerous nature base jumping is forbidden in some countries and individuals caught doing it are arrested and hauled off to prison. So the society has decided that everyone should stay safe and all extreme sports and things or actions that might harm you are banned. Why then is smoking still legal? Isn´t smoking just a slower way of killing yourself?

 

There is a wider question of individual liberty here. To whom does your life belong? Does it belong to you or the state? If you are not free to do as you please, then you belong to the state. You are property of the state and you have no right to harm or endanger that which belongs to the state.

How many dollars/euros has the state invested in you? How much has your education etc. cost to the state? The state has invested a lot of money in you, therefore you belong to the state and it expects to get its investment back as tax money paid by you and maybe make a small profit as well as you are not exempt from taxes once you have paid back the states investment in you.

 

In the Soviet Union, no one was allowed to emigrate from the country. No one could leave the "workers paradise" if the were displeased.

 

So, the society, that is the majority, decide what you may or may not do and the society HIGHLY ENCOURAGES you to conform to the majority´s norms and views, if you don´t, the society will penalize you to further encourage you to conform. If you dislike the society, you can leave, but where ever you go, you only find similar societys and similar restrictions as democracy has become the norm in a good deal of the world.

 

I have another example of how the society limits personal liberties:

Ever since I was discharged from the mental hospital, I have been under observation by the local mental health authorities. They keep a record of me and expect me to keep in touch with them regularly. If I cease to report in they contact me. In other words I am not allowed to isolate myself from the society as that is seen as abnormal behavior and possibly indicative of mental illness. Regularly they annoy me with requests to join social groups meant for mental health patients, which I flatly refuse. I don´t need support groups etc.

 

One other question is WHO DECIDES?

 

Who makes the decisions that a person should be locked up? A doctor? A judge?

 

Is it right that the society has invested a single doctor with the power to incarcerate a suspected mental patient for an indefinete period of time? I think that is a little bit too much power in the hands of a single person. Who guarantees that the doctor doesn´t just send the patient to a mental hospital out of spite? Do we place too much trust in the men in white coats?