🇳🇱
Should we let someone die who is unwilling (but otherwise capable) of doing what is needed to stay alive?
@freemo on whether they can be helped, change their mind about it, and get better.
@freemo it's the idea that people don't always know what's best for them as in "I don't need no education". This has been massively abused by various autocratic regimes and nanny states but it's not a reason to let people kill themselves just because they're going through a phase.
@mjambon This seems like a very different answer than your earlier one... So if someone "doesnt know what is best for them" shall we force them?
@mjambon and if they seem unwilling to hav etheir mind changed or make the effort to get better?
@freemo I think it should be up to you to decide when faced with such a situation, not the law. Personally, I don't have firm rules for deciding this, possibly because I was never faced with such a situation.
@mjambon Well I never mentioned the law. But the idea here is to get a sense of what people think the guidline is, that way as a society we can decide on how it would be appropriate to handle various situations. That may or may not influence law.
@freemo like most people, I'd probably spend more effort to rescue the people I know and love than strangers. It's unfortunate for those who are the most isolated.
@mjambon Would that even be rescue, to force someone to do what you think is best for them when they explicitly dont want it?
@freemo it depends. Ask them later what they think.
@mjambon Good idea, before we do anything we should always check with the future first :)
@freemo all decisions are based on how we imagine the future. My previous message was about confronting a past prediction with an actual outcome: "I made you live even though you didn't want it because I thought you'd feel better later. How are you now?"
@mjambon Sounds like a bit of a cop out to be honest.
@freemo I'm not sure what you mean exactly by "cop out". Clearly, I don't want a hard rule to decide whether someone lives or die. Such a situation seems important and rare enough that it deserves serious pondering when it happens.
@freemo That’s a really interesting question! Putting my EMT hat on, if they’re competent they get to refuse an intervention but in practice those are hard calls.
More generally it kind of depends on other factors. For example, do you let someone ignore a mandatory evacuation knowing they may want to be rescued later at greater risk to all concerned?
It’s a thought provoking question. I’d lean towards answering “Yes” in the abstract and mostly in practice but I’m willing to believe there are circumstances where I’d be open to “No” and I can’t come up with a consistent limiting principle.
@Gbudd It certainly isnt an easy question... I will have to give my response to you some thought.
@freemo I should clarify a bit too.
When I’m out as an EMT it’s a relatively bright line. If they’re competent (alert and oriented, not a threat to themselves or others, over 18) they get to refuse medical attention. We might try to convince them but at the end of the day they get to choose.
There are calls where that feels crappy but at least we have a decision making framework to fall back on.
@robryk @freemo I should have been a bit clearer. In this specific context (it might be different in other states) we can involuntarily transport someone who has explicitly expressed suicidal thoughts or acts.
It’s not the same case as “I think they’ve got a fatal condition but they don’t want to go to the hospital” though I guess it’s arguably a legal rather than moral distinction. In the EMT framework it’s just presumed that if you want to actively end your life that you’re not mentally competent.
@freemo it depends