TAW122
Emissary of the right to die.
- Aug 30, 2018
- 6,966
Similar to other threads I wrote about danger and risk as well as the psychiatric system and 'benevolent paternalism', this thread breaks down what really happens in the real world when those who are suspected of planning to CTB, having CTB ideation, or even those who attempt (and fail) to CTB face. Many of us in the community have heard about the terms 'risk assessment', 'threat assessment', 'danger to self (assessment)' or any similar jargon when it comes to the CTB preventionists and similar crowd. However, this thread will elaborate and explain why such measures taken by MHPs and society at large are nothing more than just punitive, (benevolent) paternalistic measures against people they don't like or find offensive. Before I proceed though, there are two points that I will address.
The two points I will address related to this topic (in order to prevent confusion as well as setting the tone and for clarity purposes) are that:
1) These measures prevent the impulsive CTBs! Yes, while there are people (usually those who are not age of majority or those who just act impulsively) who are saved, again, this thread is referring to the people who are determined and made up their minds when it comes to CTB, not out of irrationality or impulsivity.
2) There are people who use it as a weapon, to manipulate, threaten, or get attention. I will say that those people who do so to manipulate others are wrong and I do NOT endorse nor condone such behaviors. However, that point is for another thread and most people (including many pro-choicers) will agree that manipulative behavior by using CTB as a threat, to pressure or manipulate, or just to get attention are scummy.
(Keep in mind this thread is NOT about those two points that I've just addressed, but something entirely different.)
Now that those points have been addressed, here is a breakdown of the main topic "Why CTB risk/danger assessment is mostly a punitive, paternalistic measure against people who are willfully and knowingly wanting to CTB. There are many people who claim that CTB prevention and such saved them and are grateful to be alive, but I am not referring to those people. Usually when MHP (mental health professionals) or those who are inquisitive or moralistic busybodies take these measures it's [usually] not about saving the person even if they use that reasoning or as a facade for such, but due to probable cause or reason to believe that said person may be thinking about CTB (ideation), planning CTB (acquiring methods, means, researching, etc), or even attempting soon (usually within hours, days, weeks, etc.). As we know, the society we live in present day is a prohibitive one when it comes to the right to die, voluntary euthanasia, death, and similar topics. As even EG (existentialgoof) in many of his posts and responses on Reddit point out, his main argument is that "people are more offended at the idea of people opting out [of life], rather than the welfare of the person (ending the person's suffering or solving the issues that cause said suffering to begin with.)" which makes a lot of sense.
In another thread titled "We live in a paternalistic, punitive society when it comes to CTB and RTD", I took a more general approach on the topic, but this one is more specifically narrow in focus on "risk assessment and threat assessment". While most proponents claim it is done for the safety of others and in the best interests (which is not in the best interests of all, obviously), the reality is that it is done to uphold the status quo and also punish those who violate it (despite it not being illegal, but de facto is). It is akin to blasphemy or some sort of societal sin to be either planning to CTB, thinking about CTB, or even potentially attempting (but failing) to CTB, and those who are caught or failed before they could execute their plan are punished for it. They are punished through detainment, humiliation, and a slew of other social and civil consequences.
On another point, for those who actually serious about CTB and such are not likely going to reveal their intentions or plans (for obvious reasons), therefore making CTB risk and danger assessment completely moot. This also further proves my point that it is done to placate and appease the masses' ego, beliefs, and values, even at the cost of the individual's autonomy freedom, dignity, and well-being. It's about punishing (even if they don't see it as such) those who go against the idea, or violate this kind of value and tenet that society has regarding life and sentience.
So in the end, whenever one encounters the question, assessment, or any inquisitive probing into one's risk or would be CTB, it's really just a trap because it's there not primarily to save the person (though pro-lifers and prohibitionists, preventionists would like to frame it as such), but rather to uphold the status quo and punish those who violate that tenet (aka pose a threat to themselves or would be attempting the forbidden act of CTB). It is thus akin to that of blasphemy laws. While there are people saved, that really is more of a secondary, perhaps even tertiary function of such assessments and probes. The primary purpose really is a punitive, authoritarian measure manufactured as an act of benevolent paternalism, especially for those who really, truly (made up their minds and are unwavering in resolve to) want to CTB and end one's suffering.
The two points I will address related to this topic (in order to prevent confusion as well as setting the tone and for clarity purposes) are that:
1) These measures prevent the impulsive CTBs! Yes, while there are people (usually those who are not age of majority or those who just act impulsively) who are saved, again, this thread is referring to the people who are determined and made up their minds when it comes to CTB, not out of irrationality or impulsivity.
2) There are people who use it as a weapon, to manipulate, threaten, or get attention. I will say that those people who do so to manipulate others are wrong and I do NOT endorse nor condone such behaviors. However, that point is for another thread and most people (including many pro-choicers) will agree that manipulative behavior by using CTB as a threat, to pressure or manipulate, or just to get attention are scummy.
(Keep in mind this thread is NOT about those two points that I've just addressed, but something entirely different.)
Now that those points have been addressed, here is a breakdown of the main topic "Why CTB risk/danger assessment is mostly a punitive, paternalistic measure against people who are willfully and knowingly wanting to CTB. There are many people who claim that CTB prevention and such saved them and are grateful to be alive, but I am not referring to those people. Usually when MHP (mental health professionals) or those who are inquisitive or moralistic busybodies take these measures it's [usually] not about saving the person even if they use that reasoning or as a facade for such, but due to probable cause or reason to believe that said person may be thinking about CTB (ideation), planning CTB (acquiring methods, means, researching, etc), or even attempting soon (usually within hours, days, weeks, etc.). As we know, the society we live in present day is a prohibitive one when it comes to the right to die, voluntary euthanasia, death, and similar topics. As even EG (existentialgoof) in many of his posts and responses on Reddit point out, his main argument is that "people are more offended at the idea of people opting out [of life], rather than the welfare of the person (ending the person's suffering or solving the issues that cause said suffering to begin with.)" which makes a lot of sense.
In another thread titled "We live in a paternalistic, punitive society when it comes to CTB and RTD", I took a more general approach on the topic, but this one is more specifically narrow in focus on "risk assessment and threat assessment". While most proponents claim it is done for the safety of others and in the best interests (which is not in the best interests of all, obviously), the reality is that it is done to uphold the status quo and also punish those who violate it (despite it not being illegal, but de facto is). It is akin to blasphemy or some sort of societal sin to be either planning to CTB, thinking about CTB, or even potentially attempting (but failing) to CTB, and those who are caught or failed before they could execute their plan are punished for it. They are punished through detainment, humiliation, and a slew of other social and civil consequences.
On another point, for those who actually serious about CTB and such are not likely going to reveal their intentions or plans (for obvious reasons), therefore making CTB risk and danger assessment completely moot. This also further proves my point that it is done to placate and appease the masses' ego, beliefs, and values, even at the cost of the individual's autonomy freedom, dignity, and well-being. It's about punishing (even if they don't see it as such) those who go against the idea, or violate this kind of value and tenet that society has regarding life and sentience.
So in the end, whenever one encounters the question, assessment, or any inquisitive probing into one's risk or would be CTB, it's really just a trap because it's there not primarily to save the person (though pro-lifers and prohibitionists, preventionists would like to frame it as such), but rather to uphold the status quo and punish those who violate that tenet (aka pose a threat to themselves or would be attempting the forbidden act of CTB). It is thus akin to that of blasphemy laws. While there are people saved, that really is more of a secondary, perhaps even tertiary function of such assessments and probes. The primary purpose really is a punitive, authoritarian measure manufactured as an act of benevolent paternalism, especially for those who really, truly (made up their minds and are unwavering in resolve to) want to CTB and end one's suffering.
