Thomas
What a weirdly specific and graphic description. Are you unaware that multiple countries already allow assisted suicide?
Do you actually read anything I wrote ??? or just knee jerk negative per usual?
This is what I wrote
We have assisted suicide for those with terminal illness and a panel of medical personnel to oversee that.
http://www.rationalskepticism.org/psych ... l#p2660038In Canada it is a doctors duty of care to prevent self harm and there is guiding legislation as well supporting them.
Clinical assessment
The guiding ethical principle underlying a clinical assessment where risk of self-harm is a central issue is beneficence. Even if the patient does not want to be in the ER or to be assessed by a physician concerning these matters, physicians have a duty to act in the patient's interest and preventing harm to self is considered on its face to be in the patient's interest.
This is actual a good read on the ethical dilemma that some cases present - part of the education series by the Royal College of Physicians and Surgeons of Canada,
http://www.royalcollege.ca/rcsite/bioet ... arm-self-eFrom that article
Mental health legislation that permits involuntary assessment and hospitalization is informed by the common-law doctrine of parens patriae—the notion that the sovereign (or, in our case, the state) has the authority to protect persons from themselves.
So yes, here there is the notion that attempted suicide requires intervention by the state as an underlying principle,
From the same section and the heart of the question in this thread
there are authors who have argued that persons should never be forced into hospital against their will—that the right to self determination is always more important than any interest that society may have in protecting people from self-harm. In other words, the question of whether people should be involuntarily hospitalized is a classic conflict between the ethical principles of autonomy and beneficence (acting in someone else's best interest).
In Canada, from a public policy point of view, beneficence has been deemed to be more important than autonomy in cases where people are at risk of self-harm. This is because it is believed that self-harm generally occurs in the context of mental disorder, and mental disorder diminishes people's abilities to act autonomously.
That would be my stance and clearly the stance of the medical community here.
The case study in the article raises good questions and provides insight into two different legislative approaches,
Is Sarah's capacity to make treatment decisions relevant to decisions about intervening in situations of self-harm?
Sarah's capacity to make treatment decisions is not relevant to decisions about hospitalization, except in Saskatchewan. In Saskatchewan, a person has to be incapable of consenting or refusing treatment for the disorder that is leading to the involuntary admission.
In all other provinces, the decision about hospitalization is made on the basis of self-harming behaviour or threats of self-harming behaviour. This is regardless of the person's capacity to consent to or refuse treatment, even treatment for the very disorder that is leading to the admission.
So in Canada there are speed bumps to self harm and even involuntary treatment or detention over riding individual wishes.
There are legal remedies a person in involuntary care can take ...but it takes time and other individuals which is the whole idea ...to allow treatment, re-consideration and the engagement of family and friends.
My first cousin's wife was involved as a career in suicide prevention and intervention and finally left the field due to the stress of dealing with such cases....both in dealing with the individuals attempting self harm and dealing with the damage to those close to the suicidal person.
No easy task.
by 
