28 year old girl scheduled to die via AS due to depression

[Buck Edwards]

Just now, zurew said:

This is not about open mindedness, this is about responsibility. You treat this forum as a place where you can experiment on these people ,while you don't want to take any responsbility if your advice have a negative effect on them.

This place is a not a place for doing experiements or research on these people.

I'm saying that you can't decide if something has a negative effect. Let the girl decide. Regarding therapy, I'm not against it. But along with therapy, if they wanted real help in a community in the sense of whatever support they need or life advice, I'm not against that either. What I'm against is boxing someone as mentally ill and being restrictive or making decisions for them on their behalf. How do you know that by turning them away, you aren't causing them more harm? What if turning them away actually makes them suicidal? 

[eos_nyxia]

1 minute ago, Buck Edwards said:

How do we know that this community or maybe some members weren't toxic to her. There are fights here everyday. From the outlook of your series of posts on this thread alone, seems like you had personal vendetta against her, I wouldn't trust your opinion on her. So also others. Groups like these communities can be inherently harmful if people bear grudges. Your post seems like an example. That's not the kind of language you should use for anyone, let alone for someone who you claim to be helping who is struggling. No more debate sorry. Carry on but it's kinda fucked up to be this negative about someone when they are not here. 

Oh, people definitely were toxic to her too. There was no doubt.

And I'm sorry, but your opinion about this doesn't matter. You weren't there, you don't know what happened, you're projecting onto me, and your judgement of character based on your emotions and biases is rather questionable. I think I'm being quite generous considering some of the things that happened.

I helped her and supported her as best as I could in good faith, with whatever limited means I had at the time. It was all I could do.

[Buck Edwards]

Just now, eos_nyxia said:

Oh, people definitely were toxic to her too. There was no doubt.

And I'm sorry, but your opinion about this doesn't matter. You weren't there, you don't know what happened, you're projecting onto me, and your judgement of character based on your emotions and biases is rather questionable. I think I'm being quite generous considering some of the things that happened.

I helped her and supported her as best as I could in good faith, with whatever limited means I had at the time. It was all I could do.

Good for you. 

[Nivsch]

36 minutes ago, zurew said:

Recognizing correctly who has what seems to be essential to maximize the ability to help and sometimes helping means that you need to let certain people go.

For me an independent thinking was key to reduce my anxiety and ocd.

Conventional methods didn't help me at all, and I dare to say any linear method cannot tackle any problem on its root, though legitimate as an additional tool to try, and as a baseline to start with.

Edited April 26 by Nivsch

[Buck Edwards]

14 minutes ago, Nivsch said:

For me an independent thinking was key to reduce my anxiety and ocd.

Conventional methods didn't help me at all, and I dare to say any linear method cannot tackle any problem on its root, though legitimate as an additional tool to try, and as a baseline to start with.

This. 

[zurew]

34 minutes ago, Buck Edwards said:

I'm saying that you can't decide if something has a negative effect.

Hence why you shouldn't give advice about certain things, that you are not educated or sure about (especially when it comes to medical advice). 

34 minutes ago, Buck Edwards said:

How do you know that by turning them away, you aren't causing them more harm? What if turning them away actually makes them suicidal?

Thats possible, but I think its still better than letting that person  seek medical advice from  people who are not educated on the topic, and who are explicitly stateing that they won't take any responsbility when their advice do more harm than good.

34 minutes ago, Buck Edwards said:

What I'm against is boxing someone as mentally ill and being restrictive or making decisions for them on their behalf.

Thats being framed like that person was boxed in based on little info or framed like there was a strong sign that her relationship to the forum was getting better. People here triggered her and she triggered some people - if you want to manage that, that requires a lot of care - will you take responsibility for monitoring and moderating all discussions like that?

 And yes, certain people can't take as much responsibility because their ability to take responsbility is undermined. Treating some people as if they could take as much responsibility for their decisions as you is one assumption that you should question, because that base assumption can lead to harm.

29 minutes ago, Nivsch said:

For me an independent thinking was key to reduce my anxiety and ocd.

Conventional methods didn't help me at all, and I dare to say any linear method cannot tackle neither problem from the root, though legitimate as an additional tool to try.

That supposed to be an argument in favour of what exactly?

Edited April 26 by zurew

[Buck Edwards]

Just now, zurew said:

Hence why you shouldn't give advice about certain things, that you are not educated or sure about (especially when it comes to medical advice). 

That's exactly what you're doing, you aren't some doctor or expert. Telling me what to do funnily enough. 

[Danioover9000]

   I regret not being part of this thread sooner, wow it's kicking off now!

[Buck Edwards]

Just now, Danioover9000 said:

   I regret not being part of this thread sooner, wow it's kicking off now!

Come join. Te Amo. 

[zurew]

2 minutes ago, Buck Edwards said:

That's exactly what you're doing, you aren't some doctor or expert. Telling me what to do funnily enough.

You are being bad faith there. Im not saying what you should do, we are having a debate about which approach is better and which approach has more downsides.

I never claimed to be a doctor or an expert and never implied it.

Edited April 26 by zurew

[eos_nyxia]

2 hours ago, eos_nyxia said:

Even if you're not held legally responsible for someone killing themselves (are you? can you be?), people in a community will hold you morally responsible if that person ends up doing it, whether you could feasibly have done anything to prevent it or not. It follows people who are considered to be in "role model"/ leader type positions around like a black stain, at least until the original people leave or memories fade.

This happened at least once on this forum already while Preety was still here.

Does no one here remember this happening?? A member committed suicide here a handful of years ago....

Taking direct responsibility for people is not something which should be done automatically nor lightly. Having and developing general empathy, within your means as best as humanly possible... that is a separate issue.

Edited April 26 by eos_nyxia

[Buck Edwards]

2 minutes ago, zurew said:

Its part of an argument which approach is better and which approach has more downsides. I never claimed to be a doctor or an expert and never implied it.

All your statements imply it sorry. Just don't play that game please. 

[Nivsch]

8 minutes ago, zurew said:

That supposed to be an argument in favour of what exactly?

Of helping a person in believing in himself and building an infrastructure of self validation and independent thinking.

Edited April 26 by Nivsch

[zurew]

2 minutes ago, Buck Edwards said:

All your statements imply it sorry. Just don't play that game please. 

What are you talking about dude, which statement of mine implies that Im an expert or that Im a doctor?

Edited April 26 by zurew

[Buck Edwards]

Just now, zurew said:

What are you talking abou dude, which statement of mine implies that Im an expert or that Im a doctor?

Almost all of your statements you speak on others behalf. How are you sure about what's helpful to someone and what's not and why should any of your suggestions or advice be considered legitimate when you're not an expert especially when you lecture others on not being able to decide what outcome is possible or not possible in the same breath? That sounds hypocritical and deceptive to me. 

[Nivsch]

11 minutes ago, Buck Edwards said:

(especially when it comes to medical advice). 

The medicalization trend of mental experiences is by itself a problematic perspective needs to be questionable just as everything else.

Edited April 26 by Nivsch

[Buck Edwards]

Just now, Nivsch said:

The medicalization trend of mental phenomenas is by itself a problematic perspective needs to be questionable just as everything else.

Yes. Definitely. It's something I observe too. 

[Scholar]

I know you guys hijacked the thread for petty and childish drama, as tends to happen, but I still want to respond to the topic at hand.

 

I think as society becomes more sophisticated and mature, freedoms will expand. A fully conscious and mature civilization would in theory require no regulations as to what individuals can do with themselves and to each other.

This cannot be fathomed because of how profoundly immature our society still is. But remember, it was not that long ago when civilizations had to mandate even the position in which you could have sex in, so that you wouldn't become a horny bastard who ruined society and got everyone enslaved by the tribe next door. The kind of freedoms we are given require of us greater responsibility, which requires greater consciousness and maturity.

 

As far as euthanasia for mental diseases goes, I think people underestimate how significant the suffering from mental diseases can be, and how little we have to actually treat some of these conditions. The mind can create any type of hell, ideally, if we have systems to prevent individuals from simply committing suicide (which seems to be the case in the netherlands despite the attempt to smear the whole thing by the media) in situations that might be fixable, there is nothing that makes this different from someone who suffers from some physical condition that causes immeasurable pain and cannot be treated.

 

But nonetheless, it is a complex ethical issue. I want to urge people to actually investigate the reasoning behind permitting such things with an open and mature mind. I also want to point out that these types of topics tend to evoke strong emotions in us, that make us unable to consciously engage with the substance at hand, and makes us reactive rather than open-minded.

 

I think there is something that was given little importance in this discussion so far that in general is overlooked when it comes to controversial topics like these, and that is the value of autonomy.

While it is true that certain freedoms will lead to negative consequences, it is also true that limiting freedoms means violating fundamental human autonomy and will. While harm reduction principles are important to consider, we must weigh them against the principles of liberty and dignity.

Not allowing this means that you will inevitably violate someones autonomy, and not someone who was simply irrational and therefore not functionally autonomous. You will condemn such individuals to an undignified death or to a life of unbarable suffering. Or simply to prevent them from making the choice of ending their life.

 

It's easy to ignore this, to not be aware of it, to only see the potential harms from this, which are certainly present. But if we do not recognize this reality, we will not be able to actually contend with the issue at hand.

 

In the end, the more pressing manner is for us to find a way of living and coexisting such that we don't have so many people who feel hopeless in life, such that they want to kill themselves.

[Buck Edwards]

1 minute ago, Scholar said:

I know you guys hijacked the thread for petty and childish drama, as tends to happen, but I still want to respond to the topic at hand.

 

I think as society becomes more sophisticated and mature, freedoms will expand. A fully conscious and mature civilization would in theory require no regulations as to what individuals can do with themselves and to each other.

This cannot be fathomed because of how profoundly immature our society still is. But remember, it was not that long ago when civilizations had to mandate even the position in which you could have sex in, so that you wouldn't become a horny bastard who ruined society and got everyone enslaved by the tribe next door. The kind of freedoms we are given require of us greater responsibility, which requires greater consciousness and maturity.

 

As far as euthanasia for mental diseases goes, I think people underestimate how significant the suffering from mental diseases can be, and how little we have to actually treat some of these conditions. The mind can create any type of hell, ideally, if we have systems to prevent individuals from simply committing suicide (which seems to be the case in the netherlands despite the attempt to smear the whole thing by the media) in situations that might be fixable, there is nothing that makes this different from someone who suffers from some physical condition that causes immeasurable pain and cannot be treated.

 

But nonetheless, it is a complex ethical issue. I want to urge people to actually investigate the reasoning behind permitting such things with an open and mature mind. I also want to point out that these types of topics tend to evoke strong emotions in us, that make us unable to consciously engage with the substance at hand, and makes us reactive rather than open-minded.

 

I think there is something that was given little importance in this discussion so far that in general is overlooked when it comes to controversial topics like these, and that is the value of autonomy.

While it is true that certain freedoms will lead to negative consequences, it is also true that limiting freedoms means violating fundamental human autonomy and will. While harm reduction principles are important to consider, we must weigh them against the principles of liberty and dignity.

Not allowing this means that you will inevitably violate someones autonomy, and not someone who was simply irrational and therefore not functionally autonomous. You will condemn such individuals to an undignified death or to a life of unbarable suffering. Or simply to prevent them from making the choice of ending their life.

 

It's easy to ignore this, to not be aware of it, to only see the potential harms from this, which are certainly present. But if we do not recognize this reality, we will not be able to actually contend with the issue at hand.

 

In the end, the more pressing manner is for us to find a way of living and coexisting such that we don't have so many people who feel hopeless in life, such that they want to kill themselves.

You made some good points but specific points would have helped. I'm not sure what you're implying people are ignoring. 

[zurew]

5 minutes ago, Buck Edwards said:

Almost all of your statements you speak on others behalf. How are you sure about what's helpful to someone and what's not and why should any of your suggestions or advice be considered legitimate when you're not an expert especially when you lecture others on not being able to decide what outcome is possible or not possible in the same breath? That sounds hypocritical and deceptive to me. 

Thats stupid.

I made arguments in favour of not trying to treat these people, for the exact reason is because we are not educated and we have no clue how to treat them.

To be clear, Its you who are trying to play a kind of  doctor (who doesn't need to take any responsbility for their advice), not me. I already admitted that it is possible that blocking certain people from the forum can lead to negative effects , but the alternative where we play doctors is more irresponsible.