Ship of Fools: The right to destroy what's mine

Thread: The right to destroy what's mine Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.

To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=026990

Posted by Porridge (# 15405) on :

A seemingly uncontroversial bill came before my state’s legislature last week. Basically, it authorizes school districts to provide suicide prevention training to school personnel. Money to pay for the training wasn’t an issue; community mental health service state-wide already exist, and outreach training like this is already part of their mission.

In our state, suicide is the second highest cause of death (after accidental injury) among kids aged 10-17. (It’s also second-highest among people 18-34, but this bill posited a public school program, and few of the latter group are in school.)

During its public hearing, no one spoke against the bill. Many individuals -- parents, teachers, school administrators, friends of children who’d died by their own hands, etc. etc. – spoke in favor of the bill’s passage.

The bi-partisan committee responsible for analyzing the bill unanimously (and unanimity is rare in our legislative committees) recommended passage.

After brief House debate, and by a very narrow margin, the House deemed the bill "inexpedient to legislate" and killed it.

Several representatives, of the “You-can’t-trust-the-government-or-the-schools-they-run” party opined that the bill would end up costing money, because “these types of things always do.” Okay, fair enough; this state prides itself on having no sales or income taxes and its cheapskate values have deep, broad, historical roots (not that I align with these, but they exist).

What took my breath away was the representative who rose in debate to state that, by passing this bill, we’d be curtailing the (according to him) Constitutional liberty of children to own and to take their own lives. (In this state – others may differ – suicide is against the law.)

Mind you, I agree that children’s lives belong to them. On the other hand, I choke on the notion that, since a child owns its life, s/he has some sort of carte blanche to end it when the First Romance ends, or the grades plummet, or the parents divorce, or a major clinical depression goes undiagnosed and untreated. I voted with the substantial minority to pass the bill.

The stance seems inconsistent, even to me, but there it is. I believe children’s lives belong to them. I also believe that nobody – especially nobody under 18 – has any “right” to end that life, absent rare circumstances (unameliorable suffering produced by some incurable condition, perhaps).

What say Shipmates?

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

Suicide prevention programmes are a positive thing.
Yes, our bodies are ours. However we, especially in teen years, make decisions of the moment that might not be best.
If a person is determined to kill themselves, they will. Programmes help people see options, though. Suicide is not always a yes/no thing. For the maybes, help is good.
As to the my body, my decision issue, we legislate many of those issues for people underage already, how is this different?
As to the right to suicide in general; how do you effectively legislate this one? I think we should help where we can, help see the alternatives, offer support.

Posted by Schroedinger's cat (# 64) on :

"Destroying whats mine" puts the focus far too much on ownership. If I own a van Gogh, should I be allowed to destroy it? Probably not, because it has a significance far beyond my temporary ownership.

The same principle applies to life, I think. Taking ones own life has a very significant effect on all sorts of people, not just the suicide. So measures to prevent it are a good move, because we don't "own" our lives to the exclusion of all others.

I think a "constitutional right to take ones own life" is a very dangerous concept.

Posted by The Rhythm Methodist (# 17064) on :

I'm with Schroedinger's cat, here. People may have a majority interest in their own lives, but there are other shareholders. Having dealt with the fallout from a number of suicides, the effects can be devastating - and not just to those that love the victims. I've attended an inquest with a lad's parents when the driver of the train which hit him was still off sick months later, with little prospect of a return to work. Another chap was driving on the London Underground, back when - if you killed a jumper - the compassionate response was to give you the rest of the day off. He killed three in a week, and had a massive nervous breakdown. It used to be in the UK that suicide was always listed as "whilst the balance of the mind was disturbed". If there is any truth in that, surely every effort should be made to identify potential victims, and help them.

Posted by balaam (# 4543) on :

Quite right. Preventative info is always a good thing. As for the right to destroy what's mine, how many people are in their right mind when the attempt suicide? (I wasn't).

As for this:

quote:
Originally posted by Porridge:
In our state, suicide is the second highest cause of death (after accidental injury) among kids aged 10-17. (It’s also second-highest among people 18-34,)

Working with the school age kids could reduce the suicide rate in the older group. I think those criticising the cost have not worked out how far reaching this could be.

Posted by Palimpsest (# 16772) on :

The discussion of who owns their life or a Van Gogh reminds me of Down East Socialism.

The claims of ownership seem irrelevant since the program was about counseling teenagers not taking ownership of their lives. This seems the usual claim that schools shouldn't be interfering with tasks the parents have the privilege of doing. It seems more likely that this is the combination of government is bad and cheapskates. Morality and compassion aside, it's probably worth calculating the financial costs of suicide to the state, from emergency police and medical calls to lost revenue from a lifetime of work. It probably makes the program look like a bargain.

[ 01. March 2014, 19:35: Message edited by: Palimpsest ]

Posted by Zoey (# 11152) on :

I might die by suicide (not in the immediate future, so hopefully the hosts and admins won't get their panties in a twist about this post). If I were to do so, D would probably grieve me a lot and I would be very sorry for that. But he would get on with his life. And anyone who thinks I shouldn't be able to kill myself because my arsewipe relatives would be upset, or I would stop providing the state with taxes, or my death would result in there being one less public-sector worker overworking because the government doesn't fund public services properly, or such like, can go fuck themselves. The idea that an individual has the right to choose to kill themselves is hardly the most destructive or unhelpful form of individualism in modern western society.

But then I'm a fucked-up persistently suicidal* adult with a decent knowledge of the relative effectiveness of different suicide methods. Even I think different standards should probably apply to those under 18 and those attempting suicide on an impulse, rather than as a thought-through decision.

(* - for broader definitions of suicidal)

[ 01. March 2014, 20:22: Message edited by: Zoey ]

Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :

hosting/

Nobody has their knickers in a twist about anything, but it would be much better if this thread were to concentrate on the general case rather than personal ones.

It's probably also worth reminding everybody of the existence of the Ship FAQs, and especially the one which asks "Can I share information about my personal circumstances?" which is to be found here.

Thank you.

/hosting

Posted by Zoey (# 11152) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
it would be much better if this thread were to concentrate on the general case rather than personal ones.

Why?

Posted by pydseybare (# 16184) on :

I can't really get beyond this idea of 'belonging to yourself'. I'm not sure any, least of all a child, belongs solely to themselves. Indeed, a lack of belonging seems superficially to be a cause of teenage suicide.

Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :

hosting/

Zoey:

Because given the subject material, if it starts to focus on individual posters' circumstances, it is likely to go places that are unmanageable for this board. See the FAQs I linked to (especially the section I mentioned), the Guidelines and the 10Cs - which also say that if you want to query a host post, the place to do it is the Styx.

/hosting

[ 01. March 2014, 21:40: Message edited by: Eutychus ]

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Schroedinger's cat:
If I own a van Gogh, should I be allowed to destroy it? Probably not, because it has a significance far beyond my temporary ownership.

And yet I don't think the law would stop you.

Posted by PaulBC (# 13712) on :

I can not believe that a legislature would go against suicide preventuion because of either cost or the idea that I have a right to kill myself. On the first case it costs more to care for failed suicides and the
mental health care for families of successful suicides. In the second case I do not believe any one has that right.And believe me I have thought about it. OK my theology also says that w3hen one dies is God's descion not mine. For those who are so tormented mya God help you get through whatever the pain is. blessings [Votive]

Posted by Porridge (# 15405) on :

And a Van Gogh, however valuable and irreplaceable, is very different from a life.

After all, most of the Van Goghs of whose existence we're aware have been endlessly replicated; one can hardly turn around without smacking up against those &%! sunflowers (not my favorite) or "Starry Night." They're not the original, of course, and they have far less value than the original. But anyone with a library card can borrow a book of good prints and get the general idea of, and appreciate something of, Van Gogh's experience of the night sky over Arles, or wherever he painted that.

When a human being is lost to us, photos, films, and tape recordings of "the original" simply don't do for us what art prints can do. Human beings continue to develop and change throughout whatever span of years they're with us. Works of art, properly cared for, remain approximately the same.

Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :

quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:

quote:
Originally posted by Schroedinger's cat:
If I own a van Gogh, should I be allowed to destroy it? Probably not, because it has a significance far beyond my temporary ownership.
And yet I don't think the law would stop you.

At least the law here probably would not stop the destruction of a Van Gogh. What it would prevent is our destruction of our house, at least without obtaining approvals from the local council and the Heritage Commission, D Towers having been designed by a particular architect and said to be a good example of his style.

What no-one seems so far to have grappled with is whether or not my life is mine to destroy. Suicide and attempted suicide used be crimes here, but IIRC, suicide is no longer. I don't recall wither attempted suicide is. Helping someone in a successful suicide is still a crime here, with the assistant being charged with manslaughter. I think the conclusion to draw from this is that the law does not consider that your life is yours, but that if you are successful in your attempt to destroy it, there is no longer any particular consequence for your corpse or your estate.

[ 02. March 2014, 02:02: Message edited by: Gee D ]

Posted by Porridge (# 15405) on :

On further reflection, I realize that perhaps I don't agree with the fellow-legislator after all. He seems to think that the child's life belongs to the child in some absolute, inalienable way.

When I said upthread that I think a child's life is the child's, I was thinking of that in comparative terms, for lack of better wording. I was thinking of those parents who seem to believe they can withhold food or water or medical treatment from their own child in life-endangering ways. The life at stake, in such circumstances, is (to my mind, anyway) much more the child's than the parents.

I'm not a Christian, nor do I knowingly harbor any affirmative notion of the supernatural. And yet, neither do we (AFAIK) request or demand or deserve what we call "life." It simply happens to us, whether or not we believe it's a gift (or even a curse) from some invisible other realm.

Not knowing (for myself, anyway) how or why or in what way this condition occurs, or indeed whether there's some pre-life entity caught up in the process, I guess two aspects of Mr. Lambert's (the legislator in question) posited "right to destroy" really disturb me.

First, the mysterious origins of our individual lives seem to me to muddy the waters of any potential "ownership." With all the accidents, missteps, and so on involved, it does seem as though there at least could be something more than "simple" biology going on in the production of life.

Second, since it's well-known that the human brain generally takes about 25 years to reach full development, I cannot see how anybody could entrust a life-ending decision to a child well under this age. It seems the grossest of injustices to hand such a decision over to a being who lacks the basic equipment for making it.

Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Porridge:
When I said upthread that I think a child's life is the child's, I was thinking of that in comparative terms, for lack of better wording. I was thinking of those parents who seem to believe they can withhold food or water or medical treatment from their own child in life-endangering ways. there at least could be something more than "simple" biology going on in the production of life. .

Well, here at least, someone (usually a hospital authority) would apply to the Supreme Court in what is called its parens patriae (parent of the country) jurisdiction for an order that it would be lawful for the hospital to carry out particular treatment on the basis that it was medically justified and needed to save the child's life or prevent some irreparable damage to the child. There are usually a half dozen such cases a year in my state, most;y successful.

Of course, such an action requires that the child comes to the attention of proper medical authorities. There was a case in another state in the last 18 months where the parents relied upon some sort of quack and the child was not taken to a doctor or hospital until it was too late. They, and the quack, were convicted of manslaughter and received substantial sentences. Their other children went into care.

[ 02. March 2014, 04:39: Message edited by: Gee D ]

Posted by Palimpsest (# 16772) on :

I fail to see the link between counseling the suicidal and any property claims. Wasn't the proposed bill to offer counseling not to jail potential offenders? It seems a tangential argument that counseling interferes with the child's rights. Does your legislator believe that children have the right to not attend school?

The issue has come up recently in that the Netherlands and Belgium are extending laws for euthanasia to terminally ill children over the age of 12.

Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on :

Is this representative for real, or is he secretly a left-wing infiltrator sent to expose the reductio ad absurdum of libertarian ethics?

And if he's for real, and he encountered someone that was seriously contemplating taking their life, would he feel any moral impulse to try and dissaude them, or would he open up the means of suicide to competitive tender on the free market?

Posted by Schroedinger's cat (# 64) on :

quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:

quote:
Originally posted by Schroedinger's cat:
If I own a van Gogh, should I be allowed to destroy it? Probably not, because it has a significance far beyond my temporary ownership.
And yet I don't think the law would stop you.

And this law is not stopping someone from taking their own life. It merely indicates that it is considered a bad thing.

This is also my response to Zoey - I am not saying that you or anyone else, should be prevented from suicide, by legal or religious pressure.

What I am saying is that we should make it very clear that our society considers suicide a bad idea, a bad choice, that we should seek to prevent it, and we should seek to provide other routes for people who are suicidal.

Posted by Horseman Bree (# 5290) on :

Does the legislator in question believe that counselling for any other circumstance is a bad thing? Would he propose a bill to eliminate school counselling overall?

Does he approve of bullying, so that all those anti-bullying policies should be scrapped? This would increase the chance of suicide, of course. But, hey, those are other peoples' children he is throwing away.

Does he believe that schooling is an infringement on the liberty of children? Why not just close the schools and let the children have a life that is "nasty, brutish and short" in a state that would have a huge unemployment and economic problem?

Or does he have a clue about anything in real life?

And what about the majority of legislators who agree with him? Exactly how much are any of them affected by the existence of children?

Posted by Porridge (# 15405) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Palimpsest:
I fail to see the link between counseling the suicidal and any property claims.

I think the legislator’s idea is that “counseling” equals “prevention,” and it’s the prevention that interferes with the child’s free choice. I, too, wondered if this guy “. . . believe[s] that children have the right to not attend school,” or should perhaps be able to vote and join the army, etc.

quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
Is this representative for real, or is he secretly a left-wing infiltrator sent to expose the reductio ad absurdum of libertarian ethics?

And if he's for real, and he encountered someone that was seriously contemplating taking their life, would he feel any moral impulse to try and dissaude them, or would he open up the means of suicide to competitive tender on the free market?

I barely know him. I’ve just recently been moved to a committee he serves on, where he rides (so far to no avail) a hobbyhorse about the House forming a “grievance committee” which would enable legislators to overturn decisions reached by the state’s courts. I think he’s for real, but a tunnel-visioned dolt.

quote:
Originally posted by Horseman Bree:
Does the legislator in question believe that counselling for any other circumstance is a bad thing? Would he propose a bill to eliminate school counselling overall?

Does he approve of bullying, so that all those anti-bullying policies should be scrapped? This would increase the chance of suicide, of course. But, hey, those are other peoples' children he is throwing away.

Does he believe that schooling is an infringement on the liberty of children? Why not just close the schools and let the children have a life that is "nasty, brutish and short" in a state that would have a huge unemployment and economic problem?

Or does he have a clue about anything in real life?

And what about the majority of legislators who agree with him? Exactly how much are any of them affected by the existence of children?

I don’t know about any of this. I don’t know if he has children. I did wonder how he’d respond if one of his own kids expressed suicidal thoughts.

Because we’re paid $100 a year, most legislators are retirees or have independent means. I’m neither, but am unlikely to run again; it’s time-consuming and cutting into both my job and my sleep.

I doubt the majority fear “counseling;” they were probably concerned about adding to an already-passed budget.

All I know is that I'm not easily shocked, but this legislator's comments shocked me.

Posted by Raptor Eye (# 16649) on :

Compassion compels us to do what we can to help each other as we stumble whether mentally, emotionally, physically or spiritually.

Samaritans ensure that someone is available to talk to 24/7/365, as they have found that it helps to have someone to listen if we're feeling suicidal.

The very idea that someone would refuse a child the counselling he or she needs at a difficult time makes my blood boil. [Mad]

Both children and adults may have the ability to destroy themselves. They don't have the right to do so imv.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

Right to/no right to is a strange way to think about suicide.

Posted by Schroedinger's cat (# 64) on :

I did some training with the Samaritans. They emphasised listening and accepting whatever people said, whether or not you agreed with it, and talked to them on their terms, not on yours.

Except when it came to planning suicide. In that case, there were rules, that they would always try to convince people not to, they would make it clear that they would do everything to help someone, even against their will.

The point is really that someone who asks for help, probably wants it. It will not always be possible to save them, but every effort should be made. I would still stick by this principle - that I will accept what others say, what they believe, and deal with them on that basis. But that does not include accepting them taking their life, without seeking to talk them out of it - still on their basis.

I am just grateful that I have never had to do this.

Posted by Horseman Bree (# 5290) on :

Porridge: Sorry, got a bit carried away. You aren't expected to know all about every weirdo you meet.

But it might be fun to run some of those ideas past the people who supported the lack of counselling.

Although finding out what they believe might be depressing.

I do remember that the slogan of New Hampshire is "Live Free or Die" which may have been internalised by some. Just what "Free" means is open to interpretation.

Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Schroedinger's cat:
"Destroying whats mine" puts the focus far too much on ownership. If I own a van Gogh, should I be allowed to destroy it? Probably not, because it has a significance far beyond my temporary ownership.

If you are not able to destroy it, you don't own it. I'll agree that you should not destroy a van Gogh, but if you wish it to be illegal for me to purchase and destroy a van Gogh (assuming my bank balance acquired several extra zeros, of course), then you argue for compulsory state purchase of "significant" works of art - perhaps with the previous owner retaining a life interest in the artwork.

But the premise in the house is absurd. You don't own your body. Bodies aren't property.

Posted by Porridge (# 15405) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:

But the premise in the house is absurd. You don't own your body. Bodies aren't property.

Don't we? Aren't we allowed to will them to medical schools for study, for example?

Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Porridge:

quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:

But the premise in the house is absurd. You don't own your body. Bodies aren't property.
Don't we? Aren't we allowed to will them to medical schools for study, for example?

Can you sell me a kidney?

We have control over our bodies, to a point - you are free to have yours pierced, tattooed and the like, and you are free to accept or refuse medical treatment concerning it. You can will it to medical science after you die, but only because of statues permitting and regulating that - not because of some intrinsic property rights in your body.

Posted by Schroedinger's cat (# 64) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Porridge:

quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:

But the premise in the house is absurd. You don't own your body. Bodies aren't property.
Don't we? Aren't we allowed to will them to medical schools for study, for example?

Yes - we own our bodies. But do we own our lives? That essence which changes when we die? Most legal systems would seem to argue that we don't own this.

In the UK at least, the concept of "ownership" where the item owned impacts others is rather loose. We do not own our property exclusively, for example. We do not own our lives.

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Schroedinger's cat:
Yes - we own our bodies. But do we own our lives?

If we don't, then who does?

Posted by Horseman Bree (# 5290) on :

The whole point of getting rid of slavery is that one can't own someone else's life.

There is no point whatsoever in owning an inanimate body.

Maybe no-one but God "owns" our lives. ITTWACW

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Horseman Bree:
The whole point of getting rid of slavery is that one can't own someone else's life.

Precisely why I'm so wary of any suggestion that we don't own our own lives. Because if that's true, then someone else must own them, and that would make us effectively the slaves of that owner.

quote:
Maybe no-one but God "owns" our lives.

That's not an acceptable solution in a secular society.

Posted by Porridge (# 15405) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

quote:
Originally posted by Horseman Bree:
The whole point of getting rid of slavery is that one can't own someone else's life.
Precisely why I'm so wary of any suggestion that we don't own our own lives. Because if that's true, then someone else must own them, and that would make us effectively the slaves of that owner.

quote:
Maybe no-one but God "owns" our lives.
That's not an acceptable solution in a secular society.

I agree that ownership by God won't fly, especially in one of the least-religious states in the U.S.

However, I don't agree that someone else must own our lives if we don't.

Who owns the air?

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Porridge:
However, I don't agree that someone else must own our lives if we don't.

Someone has to have the right to make the important decisions about my life. "Nobody" isn't an option because those decisions still have to be made.

Who should make those decisions? Whose life is it, exactly?

Posted by Twilight (# 2832) on :

Since when did children have full rights over themselves about anything? They don't get to play in the street, eat nothing but candy, refuse vaccinations, or wear that tutu in the snow. Their brains are still growing and they aren't yet ready to make good decisions for themselves. That's why parents and teachers are given power over them until they're eighteen.

Posted by ken (# 2460) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

quote:
Originally posted by Schroedinger's cat:
Yes - we own our bodies. But do we own our lives?
If we don't, then who does?

In English law we do not own our bodies. We are our bodies.

And we can't leave them in our wills. While alive they are not property, as soon as dead we can no longer make a will, so the dead body becomes the property of the heirs.

We had this exact conversation on a different thread a few months ago.

Posted by Porridge (# 15405) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

quote:
Originally posted by Porridge:
However, I don't agree that someone else must own our lives if we don't.
Someone has to have the right to make the important decisions about my life. "Nobody" isn't an option because those decisions still have to be made.

Who should make those decisions? Whose life is it, exactly?

Well, that's the question. I'm failing at coming up with an answer. And I need to think a little more about whether having the right to make decisions about a life is the same as "owning" that life.

In an Advance Care Directive, for example, I make decisions for myself, and authorize someone else to enforce them (or at least try) for me when I cannot communicate my wishes. In the absence of such an instrument, the next of kin, I guess, makes those decisions, we hope with knowledge and acceptance of the individual's own wishes.

These decisions certainly affect the life in question and may even result in its termination. But again, I'm not sure that's the same as owning that life. The appointed decision-maker can't just do whatever s/he likes; the choices s/he can make are limited in scope.

What does "ownership" actually mean, here? I'm discovering I'm not at all sure.

Twilight also raises the points that children aren't accorded full rights, and the usual practice is for a parent or guardian to make various decisions on their behalf. But there's no shortage of things these people cannot legally decide to do for/with/to the children in their care.

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Porridge:

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
Who should make those decisions? Whose life is it, exactly?
Well, that's the question. I'm failing at coming up with an answer. And I need to think a little more about whether having the right to make decisions about a life is the same as "owning" that life.

...

What does "ownership" actually mean, here? I'm discovering I'm not at all sure.

I submit that ownership can be defined as having the right to make decisions about the thing being owned - even to the point of destroying it. And conversely, the one who has the right to make those decisions about the thing is the one who owns it.

Posted by Raptor Eye (# 16649) on :

That doesn't work Marvin. We can be a custodian of something without owning it, e.g. the world or a church building.

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Raptor Eye:
That doesn't work Marvin. We can be a custodian of something without owning it, e.g. the world or a church building.

Custodians are not owners, and are restricted in what they can do with the thing in question. There is always someone actually calling the shots somewhere.

What I want to know is, if I don't own my life then who does?

Posted by Schroedinger's cat (# 64) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

quote:
Originally posted by Schroedinger's cat:
Yes - we own our bodies. But do we own our lives?
If we don't, then who does?

Why does anyone have to? We have responsibility for them, but maybe they have no owner. The concept of ownership is very materialist.

Posted by Liopleurodon (# 4836) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Schroedinger's cat:
I did some training with the Samaritans. They emphasised listening and accepting whatever people said, whether or not you agreed with it, and talked to them on their terms, not on yours.

Except when it came to planning suicide. In that case, there were rules, that they would always try to convince people not to, they would make it clear that they would do everything to help someone, even against their will.

That's odd. I've always understood the Samaritans' policy as respecting all decisions you make for yourself, including ending your life if you're set on that. They'll talk it through and suggest ways to get support and why it might not be a good idea, but they won't send an ambulance round unless you ask them to. When I was at an open evening, considering volunteering for them, another potential volunteer got into a huge argument about this very issue because he couldn't bear the idea of not sending medical help to someone who was mid suicide attempt when they called.

I've always had the Samaritans down as an organisation which respects your right to end your life, but also thinks that nobody should have to do so because they feel like they have no other choice. Which is pretty much my position on this issue. Most suicide prevention measures don't conflict with this, because they are focused on supporting troubled people rather than forcing life on them.

Posted by Porridge (# 15405) on :

Marvin, you seem to be claiming that any given life must be owned. On what basis can this claim be made? Not everything is, or must be, or can be, owned; again, who owns the air?

I'm not sure having control over something equals ownership of it. For that matter, I think even such controls as we may have are often limited. I can't legally buy and maintain a couple of chickens on my premises; my local government requires people to have an acre of land before granting permits for this. Does this mean my city "owns" my residence? They're certainly controlling aspects of my use of it. I even have to buy a permit before holding a yard sale.

[ 03. March 2014, 16:49: Message edited by: Porridge ]

Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
Precisely why I'm so wary of any suggestion that we don't own our own lives. Because if that's true, then someone else must own them.

That seems to me an argument against ownership as a metaphor. I don't think I have the right to use my body to drown kittens, but it doesn't follow that kittens are somehow part-owners of my body.

Posted by pydseybare (# 16184) on :

I was reflecting earlier that during WW1, the assumption was that the respective governments 'owned' young men, and could compel, conscript people and send them to war.

Clearly, the degree of ownership of oneself (or anyone else) is a cultural-social construct.

Posted by aunt jane (# 10139) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Porridge:
A seemingly uncontroversial bill came before my state’s legislature last week. Basically, it authorizes school districts to provide suicide prevention training to school personnel. Money to pay for the training wasn’t an issue; community mental health service state-wide already exist, and outreach training like this is already part of their mission.

In our state, suicide is the second highest cause of death (after accidental injury) among kids aged 10-17. (It’s also second-highest among people 18-34, but this bill posited a public school program, and few of the latter group are in school.)

During its public hearing, no one spoke against the bill. Many individuals -- parents, teachers, school administrators, friends of children who’d died by their own hands, etc. etc. – spoke in favor of the bill’s passage.

The bi-partisan committee responsible for analyzing the bill unanimously (and unanimity is rare in our legislative committees) recommended passage.

After brief House debate, and by a very narrow margin, the House deemed the bill "inexpedient to legislate" and killed it.

Several representatives, of the “You-can’t-trust-the-government-or-the-schools-they-run” party opined that the bill would end up costing money, because “these types of things always do.” Okay, fair enough; this state prides itself on having no sales or income taxes and its cheapskate values have deep, broad, historical roots (not that I align with these, but they exist).

What took my breath away was the representative who rose in debate to state that, by passing this bill, we’d be curtailing the (according to him) Constitutional liberty of children to own and to take their own lives. (In this state – others may differ – suicide is against the law.)

Mind you, I agree that children’s lives belong to them. On the other hand, I choke on the notion that, since a child owns its life, s/he has some sort of carte blanche to end it when the First Romance ends, or the grades plummet, or the parents divorce, or a major clinical depression goes undiagnosed and untreated. I voted with the substantial minority to pass the bill.

The stance seems inconsistent, even to me, but there it is. I believe children’s lives belong to them. I also believe that nobody – especially nobody under 18 – has any “right” to end that life, absent rare circumstances (unameliorable suffering produced by some incurable condition, perhaps).

What say Shipmates?

I am reliably informed that, in Britain before the early part of the nineteenth century, attempted suicide was a capital offence

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Porridge:
Marvin, you seem to be claiming that any given life must be owned. On what basis can this claim be made? Not everything is, or must be, or can be, owned; again, who owns the air?

Fine, so don't call it "ownership". Call it "control" or "authority" or even "who is in charge". Either way, it's all about who gets to make the decisions.

The right to destroy one's own life is the most extreme outworking of the principle, but the principle remains. If we do not ultimately have that right then someone or something has more authority over our lives than we do. And that would mean we are not free.

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :

quote:
Originally posted by pydseybare:
I was reflecting earlier that during WW1, the assumption was that the respective governments 'owned' young men, and could compel, conscript people and send them to war.

It should surprise nobody on this thread that I am vehemently opposed to conscription.

My grounds for that opposition are exactly the same as my grounds for arguing the way I am in my other posts. The government should not have the right to decide which lives should be destroyed and which should not. Only the individuals concerned should have that right. Our lives are ours to control, not the government's to spend or save as it wishes.

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
What I want to know is, if I don't own my life then who does?

The traditional answer was God.

And I say that in all seriousness. I've certainly seen references to God on this very point, that a human life is not capable of ownership under human notions of property.

Posted by pydseybare (# 16184) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
It should surprise nobody on this thread that I am vehemently opposed to conscription.

It doesn't, but then I suppose it goes to show that given most people co-operated with conscription, the understanding of who owned whom must have been a cultural construct.

quote:
My grounds for that opposition are exactly the same as my grounds for arguing the way I am in my other posts. The government should not have the right to decide which lives should be destroyed and which should not. Only the individuals concerned should have that right. Our lives are ours to control, not the government's to spend or save as it wishes.

Honestly, I don't know that this works.

When a person is too sick to make choices for themselves, a doctor (in some circumstances) makes a decision on their behalf. Parents commonly have to make tough choices. Even employers and governments, outwith of war, make corporate decisions and do not ask the permission of individuals.

These might not be as direct as the ability to send someone to war, but clearly the decisions that government makes has an impact on the lives of individuals.

It seems to me that it is just about scale. The idea that an individual owns himself entirely is untenable, in my opinion.

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :

quote:
Originally posted by pydseybare:
It doesn't, but then I suppose it goes to show that given most people co-operated with conscription, the understanding of who owned whom must have been a cultural construct.

I'm sure the fact that if you didn't go along with it they'd straight up shoot you had nothing to do with it.

quote:
When a person is too sick to make choices for themselves, a doctor (in some circumstances) makes a decision on their behalf. Parents commonly have to make tough choices. Even employers and governments, outwith of war, make corporate decisions and do not ask the permission of individuals.

These might not be as direct as the ability to send someone to war, but clearly the decisions that government makes has an impact on the lives of individuals.

Every decision anyone makes has an impact on other people, but that's not the same thing as having the ultimate control over their very existence.

quote:
It seems to me that it is just about scale. The idea that an individual owns himself entirely is untenable, in my opinion.

I do not recognise any claim to ownership of my life by any third party*. The State/society/whatever does not own even a fraction of a stake in me. What I get from it I pay for, and what it gets from me it pays for.

*= with the possible exception of my wife, but in her case I chose of my own free will to enter into the contract that gives her a say in my life.

Posted by Porridge (# 15405) on :

My apologies; perhaps I should know this from reading here, but I don't.

Do you and your wife have a child or children?

If you do, who owns the children's lives?

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

I certainly hope you don't think the answer is 'the parents', because some of the most horriffic cases of child murder have stemmed from a separated/divorced parent deciding that if they can't 'have' their child, no-one can.

A few weeks ago here in Australia, an 11-year-old boy was bashed to death by his own father at the local oval. Being his father didn't give him the right to do such a thing.

Posted by Porridge (# 15405) on :

Indeed.

A YWCA in a nearby city runs a "safe visitation" site for children separated from one parent by virtue of the other parent's restraining order against the first.

The funding for the program is touch-and-go; sometimes they can afford guards and supervisors; sometimes they can't.

During such a lean period a few months ago, a father shot his son in one of the visitation rooms, then shot himself.

UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0