In effect then Om, it's all relative innit! Yeah I think that you are probably right here.
On 4 Sep, 16:29, ornamentalmind <[email protected]> wrote: > 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 -- 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
