Those are the ones who should be involuntarily committed. Bodily harm to one's own self should not in any sense whatsoever be considered a crime, because there's no plaintiff.
That is pretty awful, Saint. Why people would do that, I don't understand. But it's horrible. I think anyone who finds themselves even idly considering such a course of action would be wise to seek psychiatric treatment immediately.
One common scenario for that is that of a family who is deeply in debt, the father is the only one working, the wife and children are fully financially dependent on him. At some point, the father breaks. Psychiatric treatment for individuals can help little or nothing when a country's economy is based on the principle that a certain percentage of the people be unemployed (capitalism can't function if everyone works, as there would be too much over-production).
So let us say that someone, in a delusional moment of their life, wants to take their life. Would you then allow them to do that even if you know they are delusional at that time of their decision?
It is a crime, and the plaintiffs are the family, employer and anyone else who might be adversely affected by someone's (attempted) suicide. Many people who attempt suicide fail and end up severely injured. Medical treatment costs. If afterwards, the person is unable to work, they become a burden to the family or to society. If a person who commits suicide has a family or other dependants, this deprives them of economical, legal and social means.
Yes, but I said that you are doing it on yourself. Ie. trying to diagnose yourself and then ending up with several, possibly conflicting diagnoses. No, but I have many reservations about it. Mainly because they themselves keep discovering that the treatments they have previously hailed so much, are not what they hoped they would be. Examples are "anger management" and the approach to treat low self-esteem with positive affirmations.
I think that in modern societies, economical and legal issues play a considerable role in this, while simultaneously, it is taboo to talk about those economic and legal issues openly. As things currently stand, killing someone or aiding someone in killing someone are criminal acts. It is understandable that nobody wishes to be implicated in that. Also, modern medicine allows for the arising of situations that were not possible for the vast majority of human history, and the development of ethics has not been able to keep pace with the development of medicine. Injuries and diseases that normally, naturally would quickly make an end to a person's life, can now be somewhat kept in check. For example, a person can be kept in a coma on mechanical life support for long periods of time. What to do with such a person raises many ethical questions. I think this above is a result or consequence of the modern economic and legal situation. I don't think people would insist in their sense of absolute, intrusive moral righteousness, were it not that not doing so may adversely implicate them. By modern laws, for example, if you witness someone having a heart attack and the person dies, you will be suspected of killing them; there will be an investigation and your name will need to be cleared. Or, if you witness someone attempting suicide and the person succeedes, you could find yourself charged with a crime. Such laws were passed to protect victims, but they also have downsides. Modern people are becoming more and more risk-averse, so it is no wonder they seek to preserve the status quo at all costs.
Can anyone here fully define "depression" ? Not from dictionary, but based on your own experience.Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
What would be the criterion for judging them to be delusional? Unless they're babbling about the space aliens trying to get 'em (which could be true for all I know), I wouldn't have much cause to make that judgment. Besides, if they consistently communicated the same desire over a period of several years, that's not a "delusional moment". The working medical assumption is that if you don't want to live every drop of life, to adult diapers and beyond, then you must be delusional, no ifs, ands or buts. Is it a crime to quit one's job and cease to speak with their family? By your criteria, it certainly should be. If they signed a legally binding contract promising to complete certain crucial tasks, like raising a kid, then IMO you could certainly treat it as a crime if you wanted to. On the other hand, apparently no matter how miserable someone is, no matter how much they suffer over whatever physical or emotional issue, they're expected to seek therapy and make an (often futile) attempt to gain a sense of fulfillment out of their lives. So let the survivors get therapy if they can't get over the loss of a loved one, since that's what they want to impose on the people they're trying to hold back- if it would have been good enough for the suicidal person, it should be just as legitimate for their survivors in lieu of real, genuine reasons to feel happy. The medical system should not be obliged to treat someone who has communicated a clear, longstanding and consistent intent to harm themselves. Certainly they should not assume such an obligation upon themselves, if they're going to use it as an excuse to prevent others from choosing their time, place and means of death. The high rate of suicide failure is due to medical and legal obstacles preventing people from seeking reliable, dignified and humane means of ending their lives, as well as absurd medical interventions on people in the middle of such attempts, often leaving them in a permanently debilitated state afterwards (oh, right- just give them some anti-depressants and they'll be good as new). Yes, I believe if you choose to have children, you have a social obligation to care for them to the best of your abilities until they reach adulthood. If you don't have kids, or your kids have reached adulthood and moved on, why the heck should you be bound by such obligations? Well it's like they say, for any act of authority, there's a good reason, and there's the real reason. Most of the time it's not really about mental health, it's about the families who need to cling to and smother their loved ones in order to fulfill their own personal delusions and fantasies about life, and it's about imposing moral notions which were originally inherited from religious authorities and have since become ingrained into the thinking of medical authorities and their students. I.e. modern society can't function without its unwed burger flippers? I don't really follow what legal and economic issues you're thinking of here, so it would be good if you could elaborate. They shouldn't be criminal. If someone spends ten years writing letters indicating a clear suicidal intent, and someone like Dr. Kevorkian comes along and erects a device so the suicidal person can push a button and do it humanely, since when was compassion considered a crime? Well at present, judging by actions rather than words, compassion is considered a crime, society just doesn't want to admit its own selfishness, hence compassion is only deemed fit for those who cling to life with religious zeal. No doubt, which is why ECT and other means of frying brains are still considered acceptable forms of therapy, and why dehumanizing people in mental asylums is thought to give them a better chance at finding fulfillment and acceptance in society. It's also why they still employ practices that were developed when fascism was considered fashionable, like using IQ tests as a tool to test for one's humanity. Frankly, I hope medical technology advances even faster and further, so all those people who believe life should unconditionally be imposed on others, can themselves be forced spend a thousand years on life support in a semi-vegetative state when it's their turn to go. Totally understandable. Nonetheless, I wouldn't fear the prospect of being held responsible if I suspected a friend was suicidal but left them to their own devices. If you see something going down, perhaps you'll have some good reasons for your own sake to intervene, but it's not your right or anyone else's to put yourself in a position where you or anyone else is available to intervene if need be. Decisions on life and death should be left to the individual- every person deserves the right to make an informed, dignified and independent decision on the matter.
I think MONEY can cure depression. Let's say a depressed person suddenly find himself/herself hit the lottery jack pot of 20 millions dollar, definitely he/she will come out from depression. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Temporarily. Money woes add to depression, yes. But if you are not depressed, you will feel capable of overcoming the problem, and keep trying.
*sighs* i dont know why i bother responding to any of your threads, you dont read the answers unless they fit your narrow viewpoint. Depression has very strong genetic links, it also has strong social links Knowing someone who commited suicide increases your own risk of commiting suicide as well (social link) but i cant find the statistics on how much of an increase Edit to add: I discussed this in another thread so i will just quote the relivent post (wonder if i need to reference this, a friend at uni got accused of plagerising a work he quoted that HE was the author ofPlease Register or Log in to view the hidden image!)
Most people who win the lottery soon spend all that money and find themselves in the same - or worse - situation than they were in to begin with.
Some threads are too long to read, and your English is difficult to me sometimes. Sorry. I only read what I could understand. I think money is one of the best medicine.
you just proved chimpkin's point, another thread where we go round and round with you posting unsubstatiated comments with no basis in reality and not even bothering to read the comments of those who disagree with you even when they have gone out and gotten scientific evidence to refute you. I knew responding to any thread you start was a waste of time
