Discussion On "decision making capacity"

[TAW122]

It has been said by pro-lifers or commonly used reasoning by pro-lifers are that suicidal people (even those who planned to die) lacked decision making capacity and/or clouded judgment when making their decision to die, but what I don't understand is "why" they say that. By that logic, if it comes to criminals and those who have broken the law and done harmful things to society, then someone could argue that they lack decision making capacity, but clearly that's not the case.

In other words, if a criminal commits a crime, major or minor, he/she is held responsible (accountable) for his/her actions and then sentenced accordingly in almost all cases. Yet if someone makes a mindful, conscious, willful decision (after careful planning and premeditation) to end his/her life, said person is considered 'mentally ill', 'mentally defective', and/or 'not capable of making a decision'. The irony I see is that in both scenarios, the criminal and the mindfully suicidal (not the one who just does it impulsively) both have planned out, premedidated and willfully carried out their actions, but the suicidal is seen as not having decision making capacity and then locked up in a psych ward, but the criminal is seen to be capable of decision making and then sentenced accordingly based on the charges, law(s) broken.

Does anyone know why in both situations, both people make a willful, conscious decision, yet one doesn't get charged but locked up against his/her will, yet the other one (the criminal) assuming he/she is found guilty, and then sentenced to whatever punishment the state metes out? Seems really intellectually disingenuous, hypocritical, and inconsistent. In layman's terms, society is basically saying "If you want to die (even if you planned it out) and we catch you (either you failed and someone intervened or we stopped you before you attempted, we will deem you to not be capable of making decisions and lock you up in a psych hold/psych ward." But! "if you commit a crime willingly, you are capable of knowing right from wrong and making decisions (meaning you chose to do wrong), thus we will sentence you accordingly and then lock you up in jail/prison (dependent of the crime and offense)." To me, my logical and rational mind, it just doesn't make any sense.

Could someone give some insights as to why this inconsistency?

 

[NoPlaceForme]

Human beings are inconsistent. The constant fallacies and hypocrisy are just a piece as to why I'm at the point I am. Truly, I understand where you are coming from. I view things in a similar way and I've come to the conclusion that humans are just changing too fast. Our minds constantly picking up new information and setting aside old. We make a lot of decisions based on our own perception and morality - and that is the problem. Without going through certain things, two individuals may always disagree on a certain thing. This spreads throughout everyone and in the case of suicide, most people have this frame of mind that tells them suicide is a very brash and not well thought out decision. That one is crazy and unstable to do such a thing. I believe it all comes down to the fact that there truly are no lines to cross in this world. Only the ones we've drawn in our heads, each different person, and they're all over the place. The sense of morality all comes down to an individual's feelings and perception. Everyone views things in their own unique way. This is viewed as beautiful by many, but lately I've seen it as nothing more than a curse. Because then really, can there ever be 100% true justice?

 

[person123]

I prefer euthanasia for everybody, some impulsive people will die prematurely, but that's a sacrifice for freedom of everyone else.

 

[CynicalHopelessness]

By that logic, if it comes to criminals and those who have broken the law and done harmful things to society, then someone could argue that they lack decision making capacity

Yes, and sometimes somebody does. It's called insanity defense and it varies from country to country on how it works. Your sentence can be replaced with involuntary treatment in some scenarios if the court ruled your crime was caused by mental ailment outside of your potential control.

Of course it's up to society as to what constitutes a mental illness, and societal perception of it is largely defined by historical material conditions. One's own mortality is still a taboo subject, for instance, and it is still widely taken as a rule that mentally sound people want to live, unless it's proven beyond any doubt that they can't get better like in case of terminal physical illness.

 

[eiyuu]

Speaking from my funeral director knowledge, it's due to acknowledgement and blame.

When it comes to death, human beings are very selfish. Hell, we're all selfish in some way. People don't want to take acknowledgement and potentially blame when someone dies. Say you have Person A who killed themselves, Person B on life support, Person C who knows their going to die, and Person D who committed a crime, lets say murder to fit in with the death theme.

Person A killed themselves. There's a refusal of acknowledgement, usually from close friends and immediate family. "A couldn't have died like that, it's not like them." Or "They never exhibited signs like that, why did they do it?". And then it goes into blame. "I should have noticed sooner." "I'm a bad parent." "I should have taken them seriously." It's a cruel reminder to people that death can take anybody, so people try and shift it to they weren't in the right mind when the act was committed.

Person B is on life support. Now before I continue, I have my own grievances on life support. I think it's very selfish and cruel given the context, and for the sake of this explanation we're going to touch upon the part I believe is cruel. So Person B is on life support. They are 89, suffer from multiple diseases and ailments, barely coherent, and is a shell of their former self. There's a refusal of acknowledgement, often from the next of kin, that "Mom/Dad is fine, their gonna make it, it's not their time yet." They cannot accept that their parent is going to die. And that's understandable, but they can't let go based on their selfish desires. Often people in this setting of life support can barely be even considered alive. Their usually juiced up on morphine, or in a coma. It's horribly cruel imo.

So, Person C has a terminal illness! If you don't have a terminal illness, you usually either know someone who has, or have at least experienced it from far away (such as through a friend). There's a lot of connections between terminal illness and suicide, such as assisted suicide, or even a resignation of fate. Based on experience I find that these are the most accepted forms of suicide. There's actually a large demographic of older men (usually from the states) who, when told they have say, stage 3-4 cancer and are going to die in a few months, don't tell their families, and then go off into the woods to die, almost like an animal. The common attitude is either: I don't want you to see me rot away, and we can't afford the medical bills. People have easier times dealing with these scenarios and view these people as martyrs. They killed themselves so their family wouldn't suffer as much, even though going through a few months without cancer treatment can be brutally painful in some cases.

Now, onto Person D! Person D committed ~murder~. Depending on how the act is committed, people (and the court systems) have different views. Let's use First Degree as an example. The murderer will always be subjected to a psyche evaluation. Depending on how that evaluation goes, they can usually determine the reasoning and mental state. Such as "They hurt me for years." "They hurt my sibling/wife." "Their an *insert bad thing here*." Some people kill since they believe their doing the right thing, and sometimes they are. But the reason it's viewed in a different light is that there's a way to put down blame. You can often put the blame on either one thing or one concept. In a horrible way, it's similar to saying "You solved your problem in an unneeded way." It's supposed to be "As much as this person was bad, you took them away from their friends and family." In a way, their not just being punished for the crime, their being punished for inflicting pain on others. But in reality, I'm sure there's plenty of people that people want dead due to different reasons.

When people make the decision to kill themselves, no one wants to acknowledge that it's may be their fault. When people make the decision to kill another, people acknowledge that they made the choice to "destroy" a problem.

Sorry, I feel like that got philosophical! But that's my opinion on the matter! (Person D was definitely more weaker in my writing though...)

 

[NoPlaceForme]

I prefer euthanasia for everybody, some impulsive people will die prematurely, but that's a sacrifice for freedom of everyone else.

I feel it better that way. Although some may die prematurely I think about all the other fucked up shit that can and does happen by chance. And I'd rather someone die peacefully than possibly be subjected to a worse fate if that is what they choose for themselves.

"If I cannot give consent to my own death, whose body is this? Who owns my life?"

 

[TAW122]

Yes, and sometimes somebody does. It's called insanity defense and it varies from country to country on how it works. Your sentence can be replaced with involuntary treatment in some scenarios if the court ruled your crime was caused by mental ailment outside of your potential control.

Of course it's up to society as to what constitutes a mental illness, and societal perception of it is largely defined by historical material conditions. One's own mortality is still a taboo subject, for instance, and it is still widely taken as a rule that mentally sound people want to live, unless it's proven beyond any doubt that they can't get better like in case of terminal physical illness.

Yes, I have heard about that. Though in reality, it is rarely ever successful. In many cases where one would have likely faced the death penalty as punishment, his/her attorney would oftenly mount an insanity defense in order to get a life sentence rather than the death penalty, and/or plead guilty to avoid the death sentence. I see it with many high profile cases. There is however, many times where even their attempts at an 'insanity defense' fails as the jury votes for death and also finds the defendant to understand what he/she was doing at the time and in control.

Speaking from my funeral director knowledge, it's due to acknowledgement and blame.

When it comes to death, human beings are very selfish. Hell, we're all selfish in some way. People don't want to take acknowledgement and potentially blame when someone dies. Say you have Person A who killed themselves, Person B on life support, Person C who knows their going to die, and Person D who committed a crime, lets say murder to fit in with the death theme.

Person A killed themselves. There's a refusal of acknowledgement, usually from close friends and immediate family. "A couldn't have died like that, it's not like them." Or "They never exhibited signs like that, why did they do it?". And then it goes into blame. "I should have noticed sooner." "I'm a bad parent." "I should have taken them seriously." It's a cruel reminder to people that death can take anybody, so people try and shift it to they weren't in the right mind when the act was committed.

Person B is on life support. Now before I continue, I have my own grievances on life support. I think it's very selfish and cruel given the context, and for the sake of this explanation we're going to touch upon the part I believe is cruel. So Person B is on life support. They are 89, suffer from multiple diseases and ailments, barely coherent, and is a shell of their former self. There's a refusal of acknowledgement, often from the next of kin, that "Mom/Dad is fine, their gonna make it, it's not their time yet." They cannot accept that their parent is going to die. And that's understandable, but they can't let go based on their selfish desires. Often people in this setting of life support can barely be even considered alive. Their usually juiced up on morphine, or in a coma. It's horribly cruel imo.

So, Person C has a terminal illness! If you don't have a terminal illness, you usually either know someone who has, or have at least experienced it from far away (such as through a friend). There's a lot of connections between terminal illness and suicide, such as assisted suicide, or even a resignation of fate. Based on experience I find that these are the most accepted forms of suicide. There's actually a large demographic of older men (usually from the states) who, when told they have say, stage 3-4 cancer and are going to die in a few months, don't tell their families, and then go off into the woods to die, almost like an animal. The common attitude is either: I don't want you to see me rot away, and we can't afford the medical bills. People have easier times dealing with these scenarios and view these people as martyrs. They killed themselves so their family wouldn't suffer as much, even though going through a few months without cancer treatment can be brutally painful in some cases.

Now, onto Person D! Person D committed ~murder~. Depending on how the act is committed, people (and the court systems) have different views. Let's use First Degree as an example. The murderer will always be subjected to a psyche evaluation. Depending on how that evaluation goes, they can usually determine the reasoning and mental state. Such as "They hurt me for years." "They hurt my sibling/wife." "Their an *insert bad thing here*." Some people kill since they believe their doing the right thing, and sometimes they are. But the reason it's viewed in a different light is that there's a way to put down blame. You can often put the blame on either one thing or one concept. In a horrible way, it's similar to saying "You solved your problem in an unneeded way." It's supposed to be "As much as this person was bad, you took them away from their friends and family." In a way, their not just being punished for the crime, their being punished for inflicting pain on others. But in reality, I'm sure there's plenty of people that people want dead due to different reasons.

When people make the decision to kill themselves, no one wants to acknowledge that it's may be their fault. When people make the decision to kill another, people acknowledge that they made the choice to "destroy" a problem.

Sorry, I feel like that got philosophical! But that's my opinion on the matter! (Person D was definitely more weaker in my writing though...)

Don't apologize, this is a really good and thorough answer. The second to last paragraph is interesting to ponder and something I haven't really heard before, so great analysis there.

 

[esse_est_percipi]

It has been said by pro-lifers or commonly used reasoning by pro-lifers are that suicidal people (even those who planned to die) lacked decision making capacity and/or clouded judgment when making their decision to die, but what I don't understand is "why" they say that. By that logic, if it comes to criminals and those who have broken the law and done harmful things to society, then someone could argue that they lack decision making capacity, but clearly that's not the case.

In other words, if a criminal commits a crime, major or minor, he/she is held responsible (accountable) for his/her actions and then sentenced accordingly in almost all cases. Yet if someone makes a mindful, conscious, willful decision (after careful planning and premeditation) to end his/her life, said person is considered 'mentally ill', 'mentally defective', and/or 'not capable of making a decision'. The irony I see is that in both scenarios, the criminal and the mindfully suicidal (not the one who just does it impulsively) both have planned out, premedidated and willfully carried out their actions, but the suicidal is seen as not having decision making capacity and then locked up in a psych ward, but the criminal is seen to be capable of decision making and then sentenced accordingly based on the charges, law(s) broken.

Does anyone know why in both situations, both people make a willful, conscious decision, yet one doesn't get charged but locked up against his/her will, yet the other one (the criminal) assuming he/she is found guilty, and then sentenced to whatever punishment the state metes out? Seems really intellectually disingenuous, hypocritical, and inconsistent. In layman's terms, society is basically saying "If you want to die (even if you planned it out) and we catch you (either you failed and someone intervened or we stopped you before you attempted, we will deem you to not be capable of making decisions and lock you up in a psych hold/psych ward." But! "if you commit a crime willingly, you are capable of knowing right from wrong and making decisions (meaning you chose to do wrong), thus we will sentence you accordingly and then lock you up in jail/prison (dependent of the crime and offense)." To me, my logical and rational mind, it just doesn't make any sense.

Could someone give some insights as to why this inconsistency?

The way I see it, there isn't much difference between how society treats suicidal people and criminals, and this similarity has a historical origin/explanation. Both are locked up against their will, even if one is deemed to lack decision making capacity/rationality/responsibility, and the other isn't.

Before psychiatry became a medical institution in the late 18th/ 19th centuries, criminals and the insane were pretty much treated in the same way and locked up in the same places. Then psychiatry comes along as a kind of offshoot of the penal/prison/legal system, invents a whole new discourse about insanity and aberrant behaviour/beliefs (it's not 'demons' or evil forces or possession anymore, but a 'physical' illness located in the brain's tissues which can be 'treated') and the industry of manufacturing mind-altering medications to 'cure' the 'illness' also emerges. Psychiatry then distinguishes mental illness/suicidality from criminality by this supposedly diminished 'rationality'/decision making capacity due to the brain 'illness' (of course there is some overlap ('criminally insane' etc)). But the consequences of getting 'caught' for the suicidal person are not that much different than for the criminal, i.e. being unwillingly brought under the control of an institution governed by cold power relations.

So I think the difference/inconsistency is not a very meaningful one if you look at the underlying structures which generate the discourses on what constitutes criminality and mental illness and the consequences for individuals. Those structures have common origins.

 

[GoodPersonEffed]

Another hypocrisy is that medical professionals are mandated to report when a client is a threat to themselves or others, and anyone can report someone as being suicidal and they can potentially be thrown in psychiatric jail and medicated, depending on what LE and/or MHPs arbitrarily decide when doing a wellness check. Yet when someone threatens harm to others and it's reported to the police, the police rarely do anything about it until an actual crime has been committed, and so it's too late for the preventative measure that psych wards are meant to enforce to keep the public safe from the crazy, delusional, harmful people.

 

[Linda]

They say that because they have an agenda. The people who say that are usually christians, and they are trying, indirectly, to impose their religious views on everyone. Christianity, for its own reasons, considers suicide to be bad in all circumstances. Someone who makes a careful, rational decision to end her life for very good reasons calls their viewpoint into question. That makes them very uncomfortable, because they can't handle the possibility that they might be wrong. Therefore she must be undermined by any means possible. Claiming that "she doesn't know what she is doing" is as good a way as any to do that.

This sort of thing happens all the time, though you might not have noticed it. Back in 1970 I remember a catholic priest telling people that gay men were incapable of forming long-term relationships and cared only about sexual gratification. Catholicism considered (and still considers) homosexuality to be a bad thing, and any inconvenient facts that got in the way of that viewpoint had to be ignored, suppressed, distorted, or outright denied. He "conveniently" overlooked the fact that two men who lived openly together back then would have lost their jobs, been disowned by their families, and thrown in jail. Being in jail makes long term relationships kinda difficult. The few gay men who did successfully maintain long term relationships at the time had to be very discreet, so nobody saw two men in long term relationships. The catholic church, and others, were making life very difficult for gay men, and were then using the consequences of those difficulties to bash gay people even more.

I could give you many more examples, but you probably see the point. People with dogmatic views based on Bronze Age myths have done a great deal of harm.

 

[esse_est_percipi]

Another hypocrisy is that medical professionals are mandated to report when a client is a threat to themselves or others, and anyone can report someone as being suicidal and they can potentially be thrown in psychiatric jail and medicated, depending on what LE and/or MHPs arbitrarily decide when doing a wellness check. Yet when someone threatens harm to others and it's reported to the police, the police rarely do anything about it until an actual crime has been committed, and so it's too late for the preventative measure that psych wards are meant to enforce to keep the public safe from the crazy, delusional, harmful people.

Yes, MHP's/psychiatrists have so much power over individuals it's unreal. They have the status of the precogs in minority report. But their power comes from the psychiatric discourse they have been taught to repeat in medical school, not from any genuine insight into people's lived experience nor from any real empathy.

 

[TAW122]

The way I see it, there isn't much difference between how society treats suicidal people and criminals, and this similarity has a historical origin/explanation. Both are locked up against their will, even if one is deemed to lack decision making capacity/rationality/responsibility, and the other isn't.

Before psychiatry became a medical institution in the late 18th/ 19th centuries, criminals and the insane were pretty much treated in the same way and locked up in the same places. Then psychiatry comes along as a kind of offshoot of the penal/prison/legal system, invents a whole new discourse about insanity and aberrant behaviour/beliefs (it's not 'demons' or evil forces or possession anymore, but a 'physical' illness located in the brain's tissues which can be 'treated') and the industry of manufacturing mind-altering medications to 'cure' the 'illness' also emerges. Psychiatry then distinguishes mental illness/suicidality from criminality by this supposedly diminished 'rationality'/decision making capacity due to the brain 'illness' (of course there is some overlap ('criminally insane' etc)). But the consequences of getting 'caught' for the suicidal person are not that much different than for the criminal, i.e. being unwillingly brought under the control of an institution governed by cold power relations.

So I think the difference/inconsistency is not a very meaningful one if you look at the underlying structures which generate the discourses on what constitutes criminality and mental illness and the consequences for individuals. Those structures have common origins.

Interesting take on it and I believe you are right in terms of how the legality of suicide has changed. It started off as something that is considered criminal until it was decriminalized, yet the same origins and elements still remain, just in a different form. Instead of being illegal in the judicial and criminal sense, it has de facto become illegal in the sense that one can be incarcerated against their will under being irrational, mentally ill, for just attempting. It doesn't surprise me that there is a stark similarity between the two categories, and what you said made a lot of sense.

They say that because they have an agenda. The people who say that are usually christians, and they are trying, indirectly, to impose their religious views on everyone. Christianity, for its own reasons, considers suicide to be bad in all circumstances. Someone who makes a careful, rational decision to end her life for very good reasons calls their viewpoint into question. That makes them very uncomfortable, because they can't handle the possibility that they might be wrong. Therefore she must be undermined by any means possible. Claiming that "she doesn't know what she is doing" is as good a way as any to do that.

This sort of thing happens all the time, though you might not have noticed it. Back in 1970 I remember a catholic priest telling people that gay men were incapable of forming long-term relationships and cared only about sexual gratification. Catholicism considered (and still considers) homosexuality to be a bad thing, and any inconvenient facts that got in the way of that viewpoint had to be ignored, suppressed, distorted, or outright denied. He "conveniently" overlooked the fact that two men who lived openly together back then would have lost their jobs, been disowned by their families, and thrown in jail. Being in jail makes long term relationships kinda difficult. The few gay men who did successfully maintain long term relationships at the time had to be very discreet, so nobody saw two men in long term relationships. The catholic church, and others, were making life very difficult for gay men, and were then using the consequences of those difficulties to bash gay people even more.

I could give you many more examples, but you probably see the point. People with dogmatic views based on Bronze Age myths have done a great deal of harm.

Interesting point you brought up and yes, I believe reading something about how Catholicism shaped the Christianity that is today. I like to believe that historically and before the Roman Catholic Church (RCC) came to power, suicide wasn't seen as a 'sin' in the Bible, at least not explicitly stated. It was something that is reinterpreted as such by the RCC and then in the modern days, a very loose interpretation of "Thou shalt not kill" to include suicide (killing of oneself). I'd conclude that it is due to the influence of the RCC, poor (and sometimes inaccurate) interpretation of Biblical verses by modern theists (not all but the majority of them) and the values of society over time.

 

[Sprite_Geist]

In other words, if a criminal commits a crime, major or minor, he/she is held responsible (accountable) for his/her actions and then sentenced accordingly in almost all cases. Yet if someone makes a mindful, conscious, willful decision (after careful planning and premeditation) to end his/her life, said person is considered 'mentally ill', 'mentally defective', and/or 'not capable of making a decision'. The irony I see is that in both scenarios, the criminal and the mindfully suicidal (not the one who just does it impulsively) both have planned out, premedidated and willfully carried out their actions, but the suicidal is seen as not having decision making capacity and then locked up in a psych ward, but the criminal is seen to be capable of decision making and then sentenced accordingly based on the charges, law(s) broken.

My theory for why some people are inconsistent on this topic is this:

Criminals commit bad actions. Understandably this makes the victims upset, as well as those around the victim too, because they feel bad for them. This is especially true if the crime is something horrific like rape. It makes people angry... Really angry; we all get angry at things like this. The response from society is that these criminals must suffer; they must "get back" at someone who has wronged them, and in doing so they might also feel some relief knowing that their attacker is suffering for their crimes. In a lot of cases it's an emotionally-based response.

Now the problem here is that if the said criminal (like the rapist) was viewed as "not being in the right frame of mind", just like suicidal people, then it would mean that they are not responsible for their actions. In turn this would mean that they either can't be punished for what they have done, or they would be punished but not as harshly; in other words it removes any opportunity for revenge and/or retribution. People/society will then turn a blind eye to their own views on mental instability in order to ensure that the criminal is punished, and their wants (punishment) is meat. Basically it is cognitive dissonance.

Disclaimer: I'm not a psychologist or sociologist so I could be totally wrong. What I said about people wanting revenge and such was a light generalization used for the sake or argument; everyone has different reasons for why they want to see criminals punished. Also I'm not condoning horrific crimes, nor am I condeming the wish for revenge or retribution. I actually agree with revenge in some situations.

 

[Worthless_nobody]

They must think we really don't want to die and cannot fathom how anyone would not want this "gift of life". It's very religious driven in my experience. They say stuff like our bodies belong to god or whatever. Since their minds can't understand the fact that a suicide can be rational, intentional and very planned, thought out they just lable us as "mentally unstable". Pretty much just a way to virtue signal and give themselves a pat on the back and push their religious agenda on everyone. They think they we are "not mentally with it can't make decisions" just because we can't see this "gift" of life. What they will never understand is suicide can be fully rational and intentionally thought out and planned because the person just couldn't take bad life circumstances anymore.

In the case of criminals I think people are trying to and determined to seek justice for a wrong doing or a potentially dangerous person that can and will harm others again (theft for example) so they are determined to prove the person willfully knew what they were doing. In the case of suicidal people I really can't think of any reasons for this except religious people and trying to keep us here in wage slavery.

 

[TAW122]

They must think we really don't want to die and cannot fathom how anyone would not want this "gift of life". It's very religious driven in my experience. They say stuff like our bodies belong to god or whatever. Since their minds can't understand the fact that a suicide can be rational, intentional and very planned, thought out they just lable us as "mentally unstable". Pretty much just a way to virtue signal and give themselves a pat on the back and push their religious agenda on everyone. They think they we are "not mentally with it can't make decisions" just because we can't see this "gift" of life. What they will never understand is suicide can be fully rational and intentionally thought out and planned because the person just couldn't take bad life circumstances anymore.

In the case of criminals I think people are trying to and determined to seek justice for a wrong doing or a potentially dangerous person that can and will harm others again (theft for example) so they are determined to prove the person willfully knew what they were doing. In the case of suicidal people I really can't think of any reasons for this except religious people and trying to keep us here in wage slavery.

Part of me wants to prove them wrong by not only leaving a manifesto detailing my actions and vents, but most importantly, I do want to find peace for myself, on my own terms. The latter is much more important for me than just to leave a statement, though if leaving a statement helps advance our cause (pro-choice) then it would be a worthy sacrifice in my eyes. 2-in-1 deal, I find peace and at the same time help our community as a whole.