This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.
Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.
We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:
-
Shaming.
-
Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.
-
Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.
-
Recruiting for a cause.
-
Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.
In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:
-
Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.
-
Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.
-
Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.
-
Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.
On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
"The doctors did the right thing in helping a 29 year old woman with depression kill herself" is quite literally the slippery slope. That's what we're talking about when we call something a slippery slope, that social norms will change so radically, and people will just be all "actually, that's a good thing we changed that!"
Hang on, please explain to me, ideally without referencing slippery slopes at all, what is the precise issue with this 29 year old woman with depression being offered euthanasia?
I try not to brow-beat people with my credentials any more than I can help, but I have experience in both psychiatry and being severely depressed. It would take far worse to make me seek euthanasia, but my depression wasn't as bad as it can truly get. Some forms of dysfunction and agony can truly be hard to discern from a distance. You see a pretty young woman in the prime of her life being consigned to death by uncaring doctors.
I see a tortured soul, who has consented to her doctors trying everything they can feasibly try. If you don't believe me, you can look at the article. Her every day is utter misery, we have no idea how to fix her, at present. And we've tried, tried oh so hard, with no results. I had reasons to cling to life even when my brain screamed it was pointless to get out of bed, I do not care to dictate beyond a very limited extent, how much others should really tolerate.
She is an exception. 99.9% or more of depressed people are not recommended euthanasia. She went through all the loops and hoops, she didn't change her mind. Her very right to do so was challenged, and when I initially engaged with the article, being adjudicated in a court of law. The rules are being followed.
This is a very critical point. By saying "MAID is in principle on the table for depression", you create some incentive to engage with the medical system.
If instead you take the firm stand that suicide is bad and that you will gladly lock up patients who talk about suicidal ideation until they learn to credibly deny having such thoughts, that is sending a very different signal.
As others have pointed out here, anyone who is not bedbound has a BATNA, which is to kill themselves against the wishes of broader society. Unilateral suicides impose great costs on broader society. You can not let your loved ones know lest they call the cops on you -- unless you trust them to approve your defection. While medically, killing a person in a way which is both painless and also not highly disturbing to onlookers is a solved problem, the situation for the average person is very different, and they may well prefer an option which is good at delivering a quick death but traumatizing for the onlookers. Jumping in front of trains has massive externalities, for example.
Knowing that your loved one is opting for MAID for depression is terrible, but what is worse is coming home and finding them dangling from a rope -- without you ever having had a chance to talk to them about it or say goodbye to them. If offering MAID for depression turns 10 suicides into 7 suicides (who do not want to jump through the hoops) plus 1 medically assisted death and two patients who can be treated to a level where their life is positive-sum for them, that seems like a clear win.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link