Discussion If the State wasn't as heavy handed on CTB prevention efforts and such, would there be less paternalism?

[TAW122]

A while ago, I came across an article (linked here) that shows the evergrowing paternalistic and prosecutorial nature of the State towards those whom are in charge of CTB prevention, and it is indeed a big step in the wrong direction (a step towards more authoritarian and heavy-handed paternalistic measures to make CTB more difficult, less accessible, and more brutal for those who want it, as well as increasing pressure to always overreact with excessive force or excessive authoritarian and paternalistic measures to prevent CTB via the "better safe than sorry" protocol). Even though it was discussed at times before, it reminded me of a question, which is "What would happen if society (and the State, especially) did not impose such harsh (legal and potentially criminal) penalties towards those whose job is to prevent CTB?"

Even though the question is more of a broad question with regards to society's and the State's reaction as well as protocol for CTB prevention at large, it does make me wonder what would have changed or be different in today's society had it not been the way it is. Of course, society and the masses at large are bedfellows intertwined with similar values and such, each pointing to each other about things being the way they are (hence progress towards a pro-choice society is difficult and unlikely to come in our lifetimes or so), but I digress as that is another topic for another thread. Nevertheless, I often think that perhaps if such legal precedents aren't set or things similar to what the article speaks of did not actually happen, then mandated reporters would be less "trigger happy" when it comes to turning people in, and calling authorities to section people.

What do you think, do you think that if society didn't have such harsh (legal) penalties for mandated reporters and people who are responsible for the welfare of people (even if the subject did "successfully" CTB), perhaps there may be less paternalism in society? What about less professionals reporting CTB ideation, attempts, or planning in general? Do you think that (assuming society didn't pressure the State or so - although such a scenario is unrealistic, hence it's a hypothetical scenario!) if the State (the government) did not have such harsh, draconian penalties for those who failed to prevent CTB, perhaps more professionals (especially even mandated reporters) will be at least more tolerant of the pro-choice, right to die perspectives?

 

[SarahThrowsGin]

It is difficult to model hypothetical scenarios with too many actors, but I think it would indeed have made some difference. As evidenced in phenomena of internalized homophobia and transphobia, people tend to internalize rules and regulations when they live under persistent threat of being punished for not adhering to them. If freedom to act is restricted, freedom of thought is also, by rule, diminished. And therapists do translate some values back to society (since notion of going to therapy entered mainstream culture), so the implications of strict regulations are rather grim. Their removal wouldn't end paternalism (because the field is rooted in paternalistic tradition) but would be a start, both because therapists would be more open to question their own pro-life views, and because more people who are absolutely averse to grass on somebody would be considering to work in this field rather than some other.

Don't expect me to prove this conjecture yet, but mandated reporting might effectively serve as a backdoor against free speech, intentionally or otherwise, via chilling effect and therapy's influence on culture. And the more bullshit there is to question the harder it becomes to question other bullshit (by there being too much questioning to do, too much toxic patterns to be replaced with working patterns yet to be figured out).