|
Amaros -> RE: When does BDSM become unhealthy or destructive (6/30/2008 6:33:53 PM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: fluffyswitch
i've been following this thread and i have to admit that i find it interesting, both as an individual who faces her own mental illness issues and a person who's fascinated by society as a whole. what i have to question though with the legality of suicide argument is-- why do we feel that an ethical practioner has to intervene? i think that most people would agree that the preservation of life is of the utmost importance. but as it has already been pointed out, an individual who really wants to commit suicide will do so regardless of intervention. i by no means think that every effort shouldn't be made in order to help someone from committing suicide, if for no other reason that it is so often a cry for help.
at the same time however i see assisted suicide as being a whole other animal. at some point the state has dictated what we can and cannot do with our own bodies. at what point does ethics enter the area of social control? the state has a lot to loose in terms of power if an individual is given complete control over their own bodies. giving the individual that level of control essentially removes them from the power of society, by placing all of the methods of control into their hands as opposed to the state, the community, or the group depending on how macro you want to examine it from. it's the same issue with regards to homicide-- most people would claim that there is no ethical reason to engage in homicide (except in extreme and socially sanctioned situations). however, where does that ethic come from? ethics don't fall out of the sky, and in large part are created to 'keep everyone on the same page' essentially. one can look at both situations from a religious angle-- most religions have some sanction against killing whether it be homicide or suicide. however, at its most basic, for all the good that it does for the individual for the society religion is nothing but a vehicle to make sure that individuals engage in behavior that benefits the society as a whole by creating an outline of what behavior is acceptable and what's not and by placing those actions under the umbrella of morality and ethics (durkheim, the elementary forms of religious life).
i guess what it boils down to for me is that envoking ethics doesn't really answer anything. the individual will still engage in behavior and society will still comment on it either way, and yes, that societal reaction is wholly dependent on what social environment you are in.
Ethics is science of cause and effect: how do your actions affect other people. W/regard to assisted suicide, there is always a question of motive - in a case where no one benefits directly from the suicide, no insurance, inheritence, etc., and there is a clear adn compelling reason, i.e., terminal illness involving great pain, etc., there are no significant ethical dillemas - this is seldom the case however, and suddenly a lot of people start jumping on the bandwagon - most people who wish ot commit suicide by and large feel that way due to depression, bipolar disorder, etc. - painful yes, terminal, not neccessarily.
There is in fact a protocol, it was invoked in Terry Schiavo's case, for, although assisted suicide is controversial, taking people off of life support, "no heroic measures", etc. is rather more common, and raises many of the same ethical issues.
In Schiavos case, it was determined that that there was nothing singnificant enough to be gained for anybody, including Schiavo, by keeping her alive, she was basically nothing but a brainstem, all of her cereberal cortex was essentially gone, she wasn't coming back.
The Jews, by all accounts went peacefully into the trains, and subsequently, into the showers, was it consensual? You think they couldn't smell the ovens?
It's a can of worms I tell ya, people are fucking devious, it something you have to keep in mind.
|
|
|
|
