personal autonomy

[ksp]

questioning safeguards:

- who has the ultimate right to make the most important decision of your life? (18 years and over)

i'm trying to determine the people who have the right to safeguard your personal autonomy

do you feel like you should be kept safe from yourself?

• government
• doctors
• religion
• family
• me

anything other than 'me', defaults to 'society' - do you trust yourself, or not?

(clue: 'personal autonomy')

ps. what counts as intolerable suffering is a subjective condition, only truly understood by the one who suffers

timestamp for poll: Jan, 2023

edit 1:

i'm very puzzled by answers that include 'government', 'doctors', and 'family' you really want to trust your life, and the decision to someone else?!? what if their decision is different than yours ?!?

i was expecting 100% to select 'me' - go figure :)

---

edit 2:

if a picture is a thousand words

what is the equivalent of a feeling? (just one)
what is the equivalent of a problem - multiple, contradictory, feelings?
equivalent of all problems in the past year? 10 years? 20? an entire lifetime?

how would you explain your life to someone else? exactly?
how would you explain, exactly, how is it like to be you? (your cumulative life experience and feelings)

 

[Forever Sleep]

Hmmm, difficult (and interesting) question...

For me? Me and only me! I feel like I know myself and my thinking enough to have come to this conclusion. I'm 43. This isn't impulsive. I've had ideation for 33 years. I've had some treatment- therapy and medication but I know my one saviour is being creative. (Too difficult in this world.) I know I'm not willing to put in enough effort to change. I don't need anyone else to validate my decision.

For other people... It depends... Do you believe SOME people experience ideation during a psychotic break/on impulse? In which case- maybe they should be kept safe from themselves. Still- I have BIG problems with how this is assertained at the moment... I don't think people should be committed against their will. I definitely think they should be OFFERED help and options though. Also bear in mind that some people CHOOSE to commit themselves- if their impulses frighten them. Again- it ought to be their choice. I can't honestly say if some people are too unwell to make that choice- I'm not qualified. I feel I'M able to make that choice- perhaps they are too... I'm really on the fence though.

Regarding other things that can eliminate my personal autonomy though- murder, accidental or wrongful death. My family and society at large deserves an enquiry, compensation and justice if something happens to me that wasn't my choice. A person's life DOES need protecting in these cases.

 

[jodes2]

I said "me" because I don't trust anyone else to do what's right for me. But saying that, my mum's mental health fucked everyone over, and the doctors were powerless against her lawyer to do anything about it. For her, family and doctors together, with power granted by the government, should have been able to stop her harming herself and others. She was a fucking wrecking ball in our lives, and hers. Total selfish, clueless nutter. People like that need to be controlled in some way. Fuck lawyers the selfish pricks

 

[Musketeer]

Ideally the government should, however in the absents of that rights are something you take when nobody wants to defend them. Your autonomy is a right.
edit 1: i read the question wrong i thought it was just the title and the post, ultimatly you have the ultimate right to make decisions for yourself. It's the government's job to ensure that right is protected (although they fail at that)

 

[ksp]

Me and only me!

yes - this is only about you (the person answering)

i don't have the right to dictate, or impose my views on anyone else, as well: others don't have the right to impose their views on me

relating to my death, to only safeguard i accept (to myself) is: time
i don't want to rush my decision, or be impulsive

to others, i'd suggest to think carefully about it - maybe for a few years, but some me not be able to, so i'd suggest at least a few months

I don't need anyone else to validate my decision.

this is very important !

For other people... It depends... Do you believe SOME people experience ideation during a psychotic break/on impulse? In which case- maybe they should be kept safe from themselves.

this implies that you (specifically) would try to 'keep them safe', based on your views and opinions
(your safeguards are better then theirs?)

I don't think people should be committed against their will

exactly - why should i feel like my life is a prison?

I definitely think they should be OFFERED help and options though.

this is the main difference between imposition and help :) - offer the help, and the other person has the right to refuse it

Also bear in mind that some people CHOOSE to commit themselves

exactly: this is my choice

I can't honestly say if some people are too unwell to make that choice

yes, there are cases when a person doesn't recognize their environment, and reduced cognitive capacities (like alzheimer's disease), but these are extremely rare - these are the true cases where personal autonomy is non existent

crimes and murders are automat exclusions: if you kill somebody - you don't have the right to your own personal autonomy

---

I said "me" because I don't trust anyone else to do what's right for me

yes, you trust yourself - fully capable to decide

my mum's mental health fucked everyone over

i'm sorry about all the suffering

---

Ideally the government should

the poll is not for other people: it is for you (the person answering)

so: you want the government to decide if your suffering was enough ??

edit 1

thank you (i'd really try to change the question, and make it clearer - don't know how to formulate it better)

 

[Suicidebydeath]

I think public voting might skew the vote slightly, that's just my opinion. Nobody wants to be an outlier vote, even if they still vote 'me', such as I. I've added my secondary vote anyway.

 

[ksp]

I think public voting might skew the vote

good point ! can i change the poll? (i'll try to look)

@Suicidebydeath - thanks (changed it :)

 

[FuneralCry]

Nobody else should have any right to interfere in the decision to die no matter what, it's a personal decision when to voluntarily leave this world. If someone wishes to leave, they shouldn't even have to stay here a second longer than they want to. It's as simple as that really, nobody is obligated to exist and nobody should have to justify their wish to die, and to me it's so awful how this world that we exist in does everything to make suicide as difficult as possible for people. The right to die is a basic human right and this fact should be respected.

 

[myownpetvirus]

Nobody else should have any right to interfere in the decision to die no matter what, it's a personal decision when to voluntarily leave this world. If someone wishes to leave, they shouldn't even have to stay here a second longer than they want to. It's as simple as that really, nobody is obligated to exist and nobody should have to justify their wish to die, and to me it's so awful how this world that we exist in does everything to make suicide as difficult as possible for people. The right to die is a basic human right and this fact should be respected.

Non existence is preferable to existence

 

[ksp]

Non existence is preferable to existence

i happen to agree, but i don't want to influence anyone else
i prefer to hide my nihilism and philosophy, unless someone asks my opinions

what i really want is my choices to be respected (my autonomy), the same way i respect others :)

 

[myownpetvirus]

i happen to agree, but i don't want to influence anyone else
i prefer to hide my nihilism and philosophy, unless someone asks my opinions

what i really want is my choices to be respected (my autonomy), the same way i respect others :)

I think some people truly enjoy existing but I think ultimately the Buddhists nailed it. Nirvana or non existence is total bliss

 

[rationaltake]

I think some people truly enjoy existing but I think ultimately the Buddhists nailed it. Nirvana or non existence is total bliss

Yes and no! Buddhists don't advocate suicide as a means of escaping suffering.

 

[myownpetvirus]

Yes and no! Buddhists don't advocate suicide as a means of escaping suffering.

No but they say Nirvana is the ultimate peace which is basically no longer existing

 

[rationaltake]

No but they say Nirvana is the ultimate peace which is basically no longer existing

May you be happy. May you be free from suffering.

(A Buddhist blessing for all beings)

 

[ksp]

May you be happy. May you be free from suffering.

unfortunately i don't know much about other philosophies, but i'm learning new things :)

 

[rationaltake]

unfortunately i don't know much about other philosophies, but i'm learning new things :)

Me too.

 

[RainAndSadness]

That's a very interesting poll. Of course I don't believe anyone should have a say when it comes to my end-to-life decision. And I value individual autonomy a lot and the freedom to end your life is an extension of said autonomy.

But honestly, I don't understand the answers to that poll. In this thread people claimed it wasn't selfish to save your own wife when she tries to end her life. So the majority of the people that responded to that poll agreed it's okay to violate someone's individual autonomy when you love them. But in this poll it's very clear that this isn't the case, according to this poll family members have no right to intervene with your individual autonomy. It seems to me when you take an anonymous hypothethical, people tend to give very rational answers to a question but as soon as you humanize it and you attach a very specific example to that hypothethical with a real story, people suddenly give emotional answers, which is probably the reason why so many people empathised with the husband who saved his wife. The positions of this community are inconsistent and I think there is definitely a bias at play. Either we're all not as pro-choice as we'd like to think or we attribute ourselves more weight to our personal freedom if we're the ones who want exercise our right to die.

 

[ksp]

In this thread people claimed it wasn't selfish to save your own wife when she tries to end her life

i'm aware of that thread; in fact, i looked at every post in that thread, and watched my own impulses while people were answering

i felt (instinctively) compassion and empathy towards the original poster
i felt compelled to support him, and couldn't explain why

after a while i realized why i was reluctant to create my own support post, and show my empathy:
the OP had very important information missing

i'm paying attention to my reactions, and now i know that there are two conflicting perspectives
- the first impulsive response was irrational - it was instant; it was an emotion / feeling (absolutely not rational!)
- the second response was rational - after a couple of days; and i managed to detach myself from the situation

i'm still not going to respond to that thread because i don't want the OP to feel bad
but now, i wouldn't support his actions for the following reason:

My wife has attempted to end her life on occasions previously

this is the critical information that was overlooked (but mentioned by someone else as well)

the correct step would have been to identify the problem before the previous attempts, and when the main problem was clear, either:
- attempting a recovery for the wife, or
- contingency plan: 'if my wife dies, i will die as well', and accept the outcome

the current situation in OP was simply too late for anything
(@BonnieH - i'm sorry for all the suffering, and for being cold and clinical)

---

It seems to me when you take an anonymous hypothethical, people tend to give very rational answers to a question but as soon as you humanize it and you attach a very specific example to that hypothethical with a real story, people suddenly give emotional answers

this part of your post pinpointed me to my own internal conflict between my first impulse, and my second (more rational) analytical response - this is where the inconsistency between the responses come from
thank you rain, for making this clearer to me!

so i don't blame anyone for their responses: both are valid, from different perspectives (instinct vs. rational)

if all people will manage to differentiate between an emotional/instinctual response, and a rational/calculated response, everyone will understand that personal autonomy has to be respected - at all times
(but that differentiation is extremely difficult - easier said than done, including myself here)


ps.

now i know that there is a huge difference between suicide and voluntary euthanasia:
- suicide denies closure to loved ones - raw emotion (and sometimes unable to overcome)
- voluntary euthanasia allows for regretful acceptance (much easier to cope with)

this why society will adopt euthanasia, in most countries (in the long run)

 

[Dayrain]

Doctors may be able to assist you in safeguarding.