Re:The Euthanasia That Wasn’t
by candiodari on Thursday June 06, 2019 @05:31AM
(#20112905)
The problem is the alternative. Or rather the total lack of alternative. Because the state won't actually pay for personnel in mental facilities (even for kids), the only option is the isolation cell. Constantly. Obviously without glasses or books, both of which provide options for suicide. Suicidal patients are never let out (because doing that is, of course, an extremely stressful thing to do that necessitates large amounts of staff)
You know what you don't get in an isolation cell ? An optimistic outlook on life.
Even in those circumstances patients often figure out how to commit suicide anyway with the very limited tools they have there. There's plenty of examples of patients that figured it out after 2 months or so. Of course there's also examples people who haven't figured it out after years, but I doubt anyone who's seen that considers it a good outcome.
You have to realize that you're choosing between 2 alternatives. You cannot just choose against something. What I've described here is the only alternative, and yet I feel like the vast majority of people would give these people an alternative, even if it was suicide. I don't think you'd really consider 10 years of this a better alternative to suicide if you were to go and see one of those patients.
And of course, there is the alternative "provided": get the staff angry enough (damage a few of them permanently for example, systematically attack them psychologically and pester them), and there is a point where they will throw you out (will make things worse in the short term of course). That's another thing that can't be prevented.
And I get it. There are other problems. Who judges these people ? Because obviously there's problems there. Who decides if a request is sincere and not forced ? Who executes such requests ?
But still allowing suicide is not the worst thing to do.
You know what you don't get in an isolation cell ? An optimistic outlook on life.
Even in those circumstances patients often figure out how to commit suicide anyway with the very limited tools they have there. There's plenty of examples of patients that figured it out after 2 months or so. Of course there's also examples people who haven't figured it out after years, but I doubt anyone who's seen that considers it a good outcome.
You have to realize that you're choosing between 2 alternatives. You cannot just choose against something. What I've described here is the only alternative, and yet I feel like the vast majority of people would give these people an alternative, even if it was suicide. I don't think you'd really consider 10 years of this a better alternative to suicide if you were to go and see one of those patients.
And of course, there is the alternative "provided": get the staff angry enough (damage a few of them permanently for example, systematically attack them psychologically and pester them), and there is a point where they will throw you out (will make things worse in the short term of course). That's another thing that can't be prevented.
And I get it. There are other problems. Who judges these people ? Because obviously there's problems there. Who decides if a request is sincere and not forced ? Who executes such requests ?
But still allowing suicide is not the worst thing to do.