Yes Lee, this is a very old and intriguing question apparently based upon individual issues of morality and/or a more universal sense of ethos.
Molly’s personal story and clearly very difficult to make decisions help to illuminate just a few of the questions here. With the rise in Alzheimer's disease, at least in the US, more and more families are having to deal with similar issues today. First to the specific story, there is a variance in cultural views when it comes to such things. Each country/area is imbued with its own ethos. This makes the issue even more complex. Also, here we have a situation where a bureaucracy with one bureaucrat is making some decisions that appear to more reflect the needs of the organization than the individual 19 year old. This sort of decision making can be found many places. On the other hand, there is a legal system that, although similar to what I am accustomed to, is in fact based on different legal decisions. So, the courts (and the lawyers bringing the cases) are bound by yet a different ethos, mostly a different set of laws. Then each of us, Molly included, is looking at the story through their own experiences and ethical structures. It is no wonder that there is little unity and clarity in the specific case you bring to us Lee including even your own words implying that the given article has a point of view of curtailing the girl’s right to be…a view I did not see as being that of the author. Now more to the questions you raise. You say: “I think that perhaps she may not be fully aware of the conseqences of her decision, but does that mean that she should not be able to make it?” – Lee Yes Lee, in some ways she most likely cannot project into the future as well as some of us might be able to do. Yet, is this ability the, or even a requirement of being ‘fully aware’? I would posit that in most cases, what is presented as being aware of consequences is more a projection and/or justification of a bias rather than any true clarity of sight about the future. Oh, yes, and most people in positions of decision making will seldom if ever admit to their own lack of being ‘fully aware’. The, to me, separate question about whether a person should be able to make their own decision(s) even adds to the complexity here. I see at the base of such an issue, besides the subjectivity of it, a question of what criteria one uses in making such a determination. One of many here is the idea of IQ and this is addressed in the article. Some see it as a set condition and others see it as not only dynamic but a ‘result’ based upon subjective prejudicial standards. Clearly, in most societies, there are people who wield enough power to impose their views upon the lives, behavior and even the very existence of others. This has always been the case. So, in our current discussion, we are left with only a rather impotent (in the world) rumination of our own personal prejudices, memes, emotions, morality, theories etc. I may get to my own views here and I may not. You further asked: “How much can a duty of care, inpingh up the right to be, or do you think that such a right simply does not exist?” Here the first question is exactly what is “duty of care”? I’m sure most of use immediately came up with our own notion of what the phrase means. And, when explored more, it is clear that this too is not based upon anything at all nearing objectivity in most situations. A simple example is the act of suicide which we have discussed numerous times here. Is that a right? Or..is it a duty of care to stop it? Etc. So, until there is agreement upon what duty of care in fact means, which I seriously doubt has reached anything nearing even consensus here, one will only get a scattered response of mostly cathected views that to someone from another planet would appear to be arbitrary. And, I have already addressed the reality of there being people with the power to impose their will upon another, so the notion of impinging has little value in reality unless the views of all people become unified and in agreement. In this way, currently, whether the right to be exists or not is not an issue since anyone in power can impose their will upon the other. However, for the continuing metamorphosis of our ethos, one end of the spectrum of ‘rights’ would be to allow anyone to do anything. As an aside here, in the US a couple of decades ago, ‘our’ duty of care when it came to the mentally ill was superseded by what was publicized as a personal ‘right’ to not be incarcerated in mental institutions (most likely a political decision about how to use public funding) with the result that in the US today we have many severely mentally disturbed people roaming the streets, attempting to eke out a subsistence on their own with little to no public (governmental) support. Is this their right? In many ways, I say yes. Yet, is there more suffering for them as they are periodically incarcerated in jails, beaten up by other mentally challenged ones, reduced to sleeping in doorways, no shelter …cold etc.? Or would there be more suffering for them using today’s ‘enlightened’ scientific pharmaceutical offerings to reduce ‘problems’ in today’s snake pits? Difficult questions for sure. A final return to the current topic of low IQ. Even here we are using a bell curve. IF we were consistent with using IQ as a basis for all things, we wouldn’t have selected our last president. We would require test for all positions etc. And, of course, any attempt at doing so would meet with great resistance. (The same is true for requiring top governmental officials to take the same drug tests a bus driver is required to take.) So, yes Lee, ethically the ‘right’ should exist. Does it in reality? No...at least it is not protected for us all. On Sep 4, 8:20 am, "[email protected]" <[email protected]> wrote: > Yes Molly, I agree there is a fuzzyness, what to do what to do? I > guess that each case taken by itself is the way to go. > > On 4 Sep, 13:26, Molly Brogan <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > This is a difficult question to answer, as I can apply it to my recent > > experience of being the caretaker for my dying mother in law. It took > > us quite awhile to catch on to the fact that she was no longer able to > > make rational decisions and was indeed insisting on self destructive > > decisions. For instance, although she no longer had the manual > > dexterity to apply make up or use hot rollers or curling irons, she > > insisted on having it all and would sneak them into the house and > > inevitably burn herself, ruin furniture or fabric etc., She also had > > an anxiety driven need to move from wherever she was. She really > > wanted to be back in her own home, but knew she could not care for > > herself there or afford a care taker living with her. But she hated > > being wherever she was and would constantly call people that she knew > > to enlist them in her latest plot to move somewhere else. Of course, > > she really didn't have the manual dexterity to dial a phone so two out > > of three calls were a wrong number. This was a problem in the middle > > of the night when she would wake folks up in her need to call around. > > > In spite of these problems, she seemed somewhat rational in > > conversation and really put on a good show of having it all together, > > so that it was hard for us to do what was necessary to protect and > > care for her. At what point do you say to an adult - "I'm sorry, I > > know better than you do what is good for you?" Whether the issue is > > dementia, a low IQ, or any other condition that reduces problem > > solving and cognitive abilities, there is that fuzzy line where > > decisions must be made by a care giver for the good of the patient. > > In the US, it is a complicated and lengthy process to obtain > > guardianship, requiring more than one medical opinion and several > > court appearances. > > > On Sep 4, 6:33 am, Lee <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > Yesterday I said that that the right to be is the paramout right. > > > This article is interesting in that it seeks to curtail such a right > > > for this woman on the grounds of her low IQ. > > > >http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/8222689.stm > > > > I think that perhaps she may not be fully aware of the conseqences of > > > her decision, but does that mean that she should not be able to make > > > it? > > > > How much can a duty of care, inpingh up the right to be, or do you > > > think that such a right simply does not exist?- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups ""Minds Eye"" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/minds-eye?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
