in what situations is it okay for a society to allow its members to die without any intervention?




18 Comments

Leave a reply to Spitfire3dC
Click here to cancel the reply

You must be to post a response.

  1. ladybarbara 1 year ago

    My late husband got so ill with Multiple Myeloma that Kaiser Permaneti said, “We are an HMO — Health Maintenance Organization and your husband no longer has health to be maintained.” At that point, they were going to let him die without any further intervention. I was told to take him home to die. In that situation it was OK to let him die. Nothing more could be done for him.

    Reply

    You must be to vote.

  2. Spitfire3dC 1 year ago

    To be honest, I don’t think society should have any say in the matter.

    Just like I am pro-choice for a woman to decide if she can handle raising a child; I am pro-choice for every individual to have the freedom to determine their own destiny.

    Society is a description of an organization. It can establish fundamental rights or a framework to use as a guide, but each individual within should have final authority on their choices as they relate specifically to themselves. If we can’t. That in itself may be indicative of our ability to live a productive existence.

    Reply

    You must be to vote.

    • griz 1 year ago

      @Spitfire3dC
      I openly wonder if “productive existence” CAN have the cell divorcing itself from the body. The importance of the cell is very high. It is where simple life began. And ALL of the wonders and mod cons we enjoy are TOTALLY a function of the entire body of the society. Even the geniuses who labour in solitude, do so at the provision and allowance of the society.

      My personal observation is that “pro-choice” is a simplistic mis-labeling. The cry comes for the ability to exercise choice at a point where all the choices are poor choices for everyone involved . . . and there is less-than-zero mention of the fact that many many opportunities to exercise wise choice before such a Hobson’s choice was arrived at, were pissed against the proverbial wall.

      Reply

      You must be to vote.

      • Spitfire3dC 1 year ago

        @griz Your first paragraph makes me think of Stephen Hawking. It would seem he has been able to divorce himself from his body. Most, if not all of his energy remains focused in the cerebral, which is a part of the body, but is is the only conduit we have that allows us to consider the ephemeral.

        …and yes, you are right. Choices made prior to the ultimate issue are really just part and parcel of making choices, but what is the alternative? Someone deciding for us what is acceptable and what is unacceptable? You yourself condone experiential “bad” from which one can grow. Isn’t that what experience is all about? That and the wisdom to actually learn from bad choices, so one doesn’t repeat?

        Reply

        You must be to vote.

      • griz 1 year ago

        @Spitfire3dC
        Yikes! No question who got the house and the twins in the divorce. (Sorry, one of those days!).

        Abortion is conceivably one of the most treacherous of “the bad” to try to wring good from. How can there be anything . . . but a negative lesson? (We “heal” from mistakes only with positive lessons. Negative ones just marginalize us further). Plus, despite our attempts to dehumanize a fetus, our conscience knows that it is innocent human life. That is why we go to such extremes to try to get society to conspire in the act by saying it’s OK. (Getting “permission”; seeking to spread the burden)

        It’s a “lesson” . . . of perhaps irrecoverably-high cost. Few people of conscience would heartily recommend someone they love get an abortion as a first resort. It is usually the last and final resort. A person is rarely ever the same afterwards knowing their “lesson” has cost the very epitome of innocence.

        And a prickly footnote to this. How many ladies DO repeat? It’s said once you’ve killed once, the second time is easier. A quick search on repeat abortions reveals the startling statistic that about half of the women in the US seeking and abortion, have had a previous abortion. And a surprising proportion of these have had multiple abortions.

        We’re counting on flooding the species (and alarmingly the planet) with artificially high doses of female hormone (increased estrogen levels have been found in species on Antarctica). It’s an experiment that has never before in the history of the planet, been done. So we cannot predict the outcome.
        But results so far . . . seem quite dire; and the outlook isn’t sunny.

        Reply

        You must be to vote.

      • Spitfire3dC 1 year ago

        @griz As far asI am concerned, you and I have absolutely no right to decide FOR women what is ok and what is not. You and I do not have a clue what it is like to think AS a woman.

        To this point in time, we remain, at least in mindset, a patriarchal society that just needs to let go of it. Pro choice is my way of accepting that I have no right to try to influence the answer to the abortion issue.

        As you know, this issue has touched me personally. I can count 6 people that might not have been and I know that my heart prefers the manifestation of the innocent, but I can still support that it is not a decision for me to make for someone.

        This is exactly on point with the topic at hand. I am society and I think I have no right to determine the choices of others.

        Reply

        You must be to vote.

      • griz 1 year ago

        @Spitfire3dC
        Let’s remember that since the beginning of the human race, women have been decided what is genetically right for the very species. (At the point we allegedly diverged from apes, where the females were not such selective breeders).
        And correct me if I’m wrong? But doesn’t the species . . . include 2 “parties” functioning sexually unto propagation of it???

        In the clamour for equality, women CANNOT overlook that they need to be willing to give the same they are asking for. It is time to give men an increased genetic say in the genome of our species passed to future generations. If the “evil patriarchy” cannot be tolerated holding most of the reigns to the economic and political game (frivolous things in the grand scheme of time), how is it tolerable for “the spiteful matriarchy” to continue holding ALL the reigns to the genetic heritage of our species???
        The thing about an abortion . . . is that is does NOT just affect one person. It does not affect just two people.
        It affects the society. And that affects the species. Let’s remember that women have only been able to be “irresponsibly promiscuous” since the 60’s and the advent of the birth control pill. Whereas men have had hard, real-time experience with this unbridled aspect of human nature for eons.
        It is profound to suggest that we should have no voice in this.

        Especially now that we are being expected to give our social nod (and tax dollars) to it. (See “taxation without representation”)

        This is not about patriarchy. It is not about matriarchy (which genetically, our species is). This is about equality.

        And it’s not about making a decision for others — for nobody can do that for another competent adult. But we need to stop pretending that the men should just shut up on this because we’re not women.
        Just look at the number of men’s issues that women of late have been gleefully happy to muck about in as if they understand what it is like to be a man.

        Equality HAS to mean equality, or it’s just so much hypocritical wind.

        Reply

        You must be to vote.

    • Author
      Scarlett 1 year ago

      @Spitfire3dC so in a case such as mass shootings, how do you feel about society? does society have a duty to intervene? rather than letting its citizens be killed? what should society do when they’re being murdered?

      Reply

      You must be to vote.

      • Spitfire3dC 1 year ago

        @Scarlett I wasn’t thinking mass shootings. You are playing with some different dynamics in your question. To die may seem the same as being killed, but I think there is a huge difference. The other thing you say is society, versus government. They may seem like the same thing but they really aren’t either.

        Government has a responsibility to act in the best interests of society. Yours hasn’t for a very long time. it may have started slowly, but no one has really made any effort to sop it since the 60’s.

        In the case of these mass shootings, government has a responsibility to actually figure out why it is happening and then address THOSE issues. Its only happening there so it has something to do with what is going on there. The government needs to put an unbiased effort into figuring that out FOR the society.

        If the governing body can’t figure out why people WANT to kill, it will never resolve the issue just by taking away guns. It is becoming clear that there are many Americans who want to kill others. Why? Most likely because Americans have been conditioned to believe they can control anything and when an individual is confused by the fact that he (for the most part) can’t; they take matters into their own hands.

        Reply

        You must be to vote.

  3. griz 1 year ago

    Only when a society ceases caring about any “cell” beyond itself.

    The analogy to cancerous process in the human body . . . is scandalous.

    And there is also great distress in pondering what the accepted cure for cancer would look like, if exercised on the larger body of society.

    Reply

    You must be to vote.

    • Author
      Scarlett 1 year ago

      @griz not sure I’m following the cancer analogy. but society should intervene when someone is dying a physical death? yes?

      Reply

      You must be to vote.

      • griz 1 year ago

        @scarlett

        It seems like you were thinking of mass-shootings with this question, and I was thinking of the people blocking effective legislation and the tactics they favor!

        I’m not sure if the cancer analogy works.

        But there may still be some traction. The cell that goes cancerous and forms into a tumor is still very much a part of the body — but works against the body. But it is sacrificed for the greater good. Because to not try, would be inviting death of the organism.
        (ie, the organism granting the rights!)

        What I hear the gun advocates saying, is that the 2nd Amendment is very much a part of the body of the United States. But right now, via the NRA, it is off doing all kinds of self-serving (and even snide) things that are actively working against the health of the organism (the US). Some excision may be in order, before the organism is terminal.

        I might help to remember that the gun advocates are very very worried about these mass-shootings as well. Otherwise they would not have ratcheted up the rhetoric. And we see in addicts the same kind of “extremist defense tactic” of jumping to “the most-feared-scenario”: “They’re coming for ALL your guns”. (Which really, is not in the realm of possibility)

        Or in this case, “They’re wanting to scrap the 2nd Amendment”.

        They have a point that if they are law-abiding they should not be legislated against. But we have a point that public safety is in peril and that there are proven solutions to this same problem — that involve altering laws and yes, perhaps even amendments.

        So where is the middle-ground?

        We give up our “right to free movement” every time a stoplight turns red. It’s an imposition, but is for the greater good. It was implemented to deal with a case where “a freedom” was starting to rack up a body-count.

        (It’s late and I’m fatigued. I’m not sure if this gels or not!)

        Reply

        You must be to vote.

  4. Yin 1 year ago

    I would say when the member wants to. That is basically the only time I feel, aside from maybe some exceptions where the person is brain dead or something and the family has to make that call for them. But overall, yea, society should step in way more than it does now.

    Reply

    You must be to vote.

    • Author
      Scarlett 1 year ago

      @Yin what about if they are clinically depressed and are contemplating suicide? should we refrain from intervention knowing that this too will pass?/

      Reply

      You must be to vote.

      • griz 1 year ago

        @Scarlett
        This sounds like a question of “who gets to decide?”.

        Medical science knows that with depression, the brain chemical imbalance and the “yearning for resolution” often results in what has been called, “a terminal solution to a temporary problem or ailment”.

        So at what point, is person no longer able to decide for themselves? Who decides, and who implements?

        And should we fear that it might go the other way? With “someone” just deciding that a another person’s life is not worth continuing?

        Reply

        You must be to vote.

      • Yin 1 year ago

        @Scarlett The option to have help should always be available. It should be made 100% clear, with maybe some texts, phone calls, letters, and/or personal visits. They should never decide for the person though. I love putting the message out there that depression will pass for people since it is optimistic and can help some, but in reality, that just sometimes isn’t the case. Some people suffer until their final breath, suicide or not. This is why I support medically assisted suicide for anyone over the age of consent for whatever reason they want. I can’t judge a person’s pain for them. They can’t judge mine. Suicide isn’t the option I want anyone to pick, but I believe that should be a freedom people have, since your life should be the #1 thing you absolutely do own.

        Reply

        You must be to vote.

©2019 Soul Sequel | All Rights Reserved

 
or

Log in with your credentials

or    

Forgot your details?

or

Create Account