[Article] The only time it would be logically consistent for “paternalism” is if it applies universally to all things!

[TAW122]

I wished there was a better article title for this, but the keyword being 'paternalism' is what this thread/article will be about. Many of us recognize that in this prohibitive world especially when it comes to CTB prevention, "paternalism" is prevalent and widespread. I do want to emphasize that no, I do NOT endorse nor support having paternalistic measures in every day life or so, and this is merely just for discussion and philosophical, educational purposes only.

It is no surprise that whenever it comes to discussion over the notion of CTB prevention measures, especially when discussing about how "paternalistic" they are, there are oftenly a lot of pushback and even hostility between those who support it as well as those who oppose it. More people support such practices than oppose it, and even worse, some even become aggressive and hostile (verbally and such, especially online – as I've witnessed various pro-choice people (existentialgoof and similar users) discuss with others and defenders and apologists of psychiatry as well as CTB prevention policies oftenly berate, flame, or otherwise act uncivilized towards the pro-choicers, even in various spaces where in many other topics they would otherwise have a calm dialogue and meaningful discussion). It seems that whenever the topic revolves around death or even anything that is about bodily autonomy with respect to CTB or choosing one's own death on one's own terms, they cannot have an real discussion and become emotionally charged from the get-go.

The time where it is logically consistent for 'paternalism'
So, for the sake of argument and discussion, I would only concede to 'paternalism' if it is applied universally, meaning that it doesn't simply apply only to instance and situations where it is "convenient" but it's all (most) or nothing (rarely at all). For instance, if these same CTB preventionists and pro-lifers would support having the State run their lives, major decisions (to take a big loan, to dictate how they lead their 'private' lives, what kind of decisions they do, their health (not limited to weight and diet, but other decisions), and many more), then it would be logically consistent within their framework, even if this means that the quality of life sucks. In reality they wouldn't support that and would call it 'wild', 'insane', (insert whatever adjective or noun to fit the notion), if they ever find themselves in such situations! Another thing is just imagine all the previous dictatorships throughout human history, these same people (who defend paternalism, which is a 'nice' way of tyranny and dictatorial measures imposed onto said individuals or groups.) would absolutely loathe and despise ANY such impositions on their own personal freedoms, yet they are okay with it when it comes to "CTB prevention."

I will emphasize again, this is just a position that I've argued for discussion and philosophical purposes, and I do NOT support paternalism in general. This is just a realization that I had after reading and parsing through many interactions that other vocal pro-choicers had with various anti-choicers. Of course, I would not be okay with living in a society or world that was "paternalistic" for practical and personal reasons. I just wanted to emphasize and expose the logical flaw (along with examples provided) that these CTB preventionists and anti-choicers have with regards to CTB prevention.

While I could give more examples, but the overall argument is that if these CTB preventionists support "paternalistic" practices, regardless of the harm caused, then [logically] they should support it for many other things, to which they don't, thus making them hypocrites and also disingenuous when it comes to "freedom" and autonomy. They cannot simultaneously claim to support freedom and autonomy only when it is convenient, but then selectively apply that same logic to various things! it's either they take that position or they don't.

 

[witchcraft]

Unfortunately, I have learned that not many people argue from first principles, if that's the right terminology.

To put it another way: most people don't make a serious conscious effort to avoid hypocrisy, aiming to make their arguments, opinions, or behaviors as consistent as possible.

Nobody is perfect. Especially me. I guess what I'm describing is, again, the directional effort or the ideal-being-aimed-at. "On a serious topic like CTB, I'm going to try and have a logically consistent stance." It's difficult enough as it is to entertain let alone reach conclusions that cause us negative emotions. So just considering for a moment that CTB is part of freedom or autonomy makes them uncomfortable, and they draw a line.

Most people aren't taught to think this way. It seems to be the realms of philosophy and psychology that train someone to think critically, and make a difficult effort to waterproof their reasoning (the aforementioned ideal-being-aimed-at).

Speaking as someone who is struggling with CTB thoughts and all that, I don't mean to sound like I am encouraging it. This is simply acknowledging more or less the same logic that you presented in your post.

 

[Forever Sleep]

The trouble I think is- can suicide ever be committed by someone experiencing psychosis or, impulsively by someone not in their right mind? I imagine it is in fact possible to commit under those circumstances.

Hence- all attempts that are known about kind of have to be prevented- until the person can be assessed. You surely have to consider- Why is the person committing suicide when/ where they are likely to be noticed and stopped? That suggests they haven't thought it through- to me. Which isn't entirely rational.

It's at that stage I take more issue with though. Because I don't believe that someone who wants to take their own life is necessarily out of their mind. And- if they are suffering from a severe neurological problem- there's no guarantee it can be cured. So- in terms of quality of life- is that so different to a terminal illness? They may not die from it but, they may not recover either. I think they need to find a better framework to work from- otherwise, there will be this overall prohibition.

But- it kind of is echoed in everyday life. It's illegal to sell alcohol to a minor, someone already intoxicated, a police officer on duty. Because we know that excessive alchohol consumption impairs judgement and we consider some groups of people don't have the maturity/ mental capacity/ control to make the decision in the first place. So- we are parented in plenty of ways in real life too.

Besides- there is some lenience even when it comes to suicide prevention. The focus is on someone being in immediate threat of taking their life. Their emotional/ psychological state then. The police officers who did my welfare check let me keep my SN because I focussed more on it being something I would consider using in older age to avoid the effects of debilitating illness. They didn't drag me off to the psyche ward because I mentioned suicide.

I do agree though. It is weird that as a society, we will accept the slow suicide of alchoholism, smoking, eating junk food. And even respect it as that person's right to choose.

I suppose though ultimately- the opposite would be so tricky to allow. If there wasn't paternilism over suicide prevention. If SN or N were available to all say- no questions asked. How long would it be before a minor took their own life? And- if you want it to be somewhat gatekept/ regulated- how do we agree on where to draw the lines?

When it comes to unregulated suicide though- allowing methods to be freely available. I imagine it can only be an all or nothing scenario. Would you really trust it to shop keepers to not sell their lethal products to underage people or, those who are mentally unsound?

 

[LigottiIsRight]

A big issue (the biggest issue, maybe) with all those paternalistic measures is the widespread idea of suicidality being a symptom of mental illness. So many people accept somehow that an illness is capable of generate concrete patterns of thought (??? how exactly does that works?), which is a finisher of the discussion about the rationale of choosing death over continuing life. In this framework, the person considering and planning suicide is never of sound mind and needs to be stopped. As long as this idea continues being accepted by the majority, pro-choice efforts will remain falling on deaf ears.

 

[TAW122]

@witchcraft Good post and yes, it seems like most people (outside of SaSu, mainly the masses and populace at large) just seem to go with whatever they are taught or told while growing up, be it media, family, peers, and the institutions (legal, educational, financial, societal ones, etc.) that be. I think barring the ones who go out of their way to philosophically and critically think on the topic, most people don't really give it a deeper thought. Even the ones who do still lean towards some bias towards anti-CTB or so (maybe even act disingenuously).

@Forever Sleep That is a good post and I will address each of the points as usual. For the first question, I think it can be both, even though many CTB preventionists often use a blanket approach and put both types into the same category, same basket, etc., which is a harmful sweeping generalization since it doesn't differentiate between the ones who do so irrationally and impulsively versus the ones who have deliberated for a long time (many months, years) and planned for it. They treat it all the same, which is why there is friction and contention between pro-choicers (us here and those who oppose the paternalistic CTB prevention measures that are almost everywhere in present day society).

The next question about neurological problems, and one's quality of life being closer to terminal (or even long term, chronic conditions), I would argue that yes, even in non-terminal conditions, especially chronic, long term (also possibly permanent) conditions, they should be allowed to leave on their own terms, because while they are not likely to die within six months or less, their quality of life (objectively from an observer's point of view as well as their (individual's) own point of view) is very low and if they really want out, they should be granted the option. (One example is one who is not terminal, but has been a quadriplegic since an accident from an earlier time, and while he was fortunate to have people who supported his decision, he had to go to great lengths to seek peace, via Switzerland. While there are others who oppose his decision or even try to use the 'mental illness, depression' pretext, that kind of reasoning by the opposition is wrong because it creates a catch-22, but I digress.. He had to go overseas to Switzerland because where he resides in, the State of California even though it has death with dignity it was only for the 'terminally ill' meaning that he would not have been eligible at his residing state as he was non-terminal, but chronically ill.)

Finally the big question, about allowing SN and N to be widely available, I would say it would make sense to have some restrictions and gates, such as ID checks and what not, but not a blanket prohibition as it is in many jurisdictions (especially with how SN is so heavily restricted that it becomes very difficult for an individual to acquire without all the trouble and complications, possibly triggering red flags or interrogation of one's purpose with it). For example, if say SN was available and legally purchasable like alcohol, yes the store would check for ID and age, and if someone is not of age, they will refuse it, similar to what they do with alcohol in many countries. I would say to draw the line at where people are cognizant of why they use it, and if suspected that people are going to use it for illegal or harmful purposes (such as harming others or things), then they would be stopped. I believe there are many things that are harmful and they are regulated, but not outright banned altogether, not limited to drugs, firearms, alcohol, and many other things. So I guess the 'bad actor' argument itself isn't necessarily the best argument because with humans when it comes to freedom, there is always some implicit risk of bad actors, or risk of harm, but that should not be justification for a blanket ban on anything.

@LigottiIsRight This is an important point and yes, you are correct that this kind of idea is something that really needs to be changed, reformed. The act of suicide (CTB) or even suicidality (ideation) itself is NOT always the symptom of a mental illness (because even by their own logic, the pro-lifers and preventionists would then have to exclude allowing terminally ill patients death with dignity or the right to die, which they already carved an 'exception' for, otherwise they would be disingenuous and hypocritical for allowing it for 'terminal illnesses, less the six months to live' while excluding it for every other case.) I do fully agree and believe that the act of suicide is not always the symptom of a mental illness, but can be a well-thoughtout and carefully planned, deliberated action that one takes to voluntarily exit one's (unwanted continued) existence. Whether society itself will see it that way is another matter altogether (not likely anytime soon).