I might be going out on a limb here, but I think anyone that wants to maim themselves is just a little nuts. Abnormal. And the current thinking in society is that if it doesn't hurt anyone else, what's the harm in self-harm? Indeed, what's the harm in suicide, in euthanasia and abortion?
Do we give up on treatment for such people people, or do we help them to live with their disability - the mental disability that they think they are whole only when they are not, or do we hand them a chainsaw and say "hey, go for it?"
The story in the paper today where psychiatrist Christopher Ryan puts forward the idea that Doctors are "duty bound" to amputate healthy limbs if that is what the patient wants is a symptom of the madness of pandering to the desires and not interests of individuals.
It's one thing to argue to let people do what they want, even if it is unhealthy, unethical or immoral. It is another to legislate to force this on others. The recent legislation in Victoria Australia, forcing Doctors to perform late term abortions is an example of how far these ideas are pushed.
What Dr Ryan is admitting to is that psychiatrists can't cure some people with mental issues, so the next best thing is to pander to their whims so that they don't do anything rash. The problem is, what happens if a person "recovers" and achieves a normal state of mind?
Related Link: Cutting off limbs seen as armless
Do we give up on treatment for such people people, or do we help them to live with their disability - the mental disability that they think they are whole only when they are not, or do we hand them a chainsaw and say "hey, go for it?"
The story in the paper today where psychiatrist Christopher Ryan puts forward the idea that Doctors are "duty bound" to amputate healthy limbs if that is what the patient wants is a symptom of the madness of pandering to the desires and not interests of individuals.
It's one thing to argue to let people do what they want, even if it is unhealthy, unethical or immoral. It is another to legislate to force this on others. The recent legislation in Victoria Australia, forcing Doctors to perform late term abortions is an example of how far these ideas are pushed.
What Dr Ryan is admitting to is that psychiatrists can't cure some people with mental issues, so the next best thing is to pander to their whims so that they don't do anything rash. The problem is, what happens if a person "recovers" and achieves a normal state of mind?
Dr Ryan has examined the ethics of the issue in the international philosophy journal Neuroethics and says doctors have a moral duty to amputate for the health and safety of the patient.And now it seems Freud is an ethicist.
Related Link: Cutting off limbs seen as armless
Hows the election looking folks. Is helen packing her bags?
ReplyDeleteI think results will be from 7pm tonight.
ReplyDeleteYup, she packed her bags MK. H2 and Tizard are gone.
ReplyDeletePacked her suitcase too, and resigned.
How cool is that, eh?
On topic Zen -
ReplyDeleteDo we give up on treatment for such people people, or do we help them to live with their disability - the mental disability that they think they are whole only when they are not, or do we hand them a chainsaw and say "hey, go for it?"
Saying 'go for it' is the easy way out. If you are mentally ill you need help and cannot have the same rights as those who are not mentally ill.
In terms of libertarianism you see this all the time. Take guns - a friend of mine asked Perigo on radio a while back if the mentally ill should be able to have guns. He said yes.
Bizzaro.
Indeed. To take responsibility for your actions is the Libertarian "check" on excessive freedom.
ReplyDeleteChildren, the insane, some categories of the mentally ill and the habitual criminal are all incapable of taking responsibility for their actions.
If there is no "check" on their violation of the rights of others, then all we have left is punishment, or preventative detention to stop repeat offences, which even then, many are loathe to do.
Matt discusses this issue in Against Liberal Morality.
ReplyDeleteThere is a bit in the literature in the problem you refer to - especially dualling and consensual death matches, etc.
The liberals seem largely quiet on this post. I wonder if it is because they can see where it leads?
ReplyDeleteWhen consenting adults agree to harm only themselves, society has (in the liberal ideal) no right to prevent them.
However, is it prevention of the act, or is the issue that society provided a platform for a bad choice to be made in the first place?
How far reaching can that harm of self extend?
Taking this to its logical conclusion, I dare not discuss this further, for it would give the game away :-)