site banner
Advanced search parameters (with examples): "author:quadnarca", "domain:reddit.com", "over18:true"

Showing 25 of 333305 results for

domain:inv.nadeko.net

Wasn't there an instance of this?

Unarmed bystanders tackle a knife attacker. The police respond, but restrain the bystander and a policeman is then fatally wounded in the neck by the knifeman.

I recall seeing video from the incident.

Edit

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2024_Mannheim_stabbing

Severely depressed people are famously known for being well motivated and agentic.

You might have heard, most likely as a semi-serious observation, that the side effect profile of most antidepressants includes increased risk of suicide.

Ever wonder why? It is because depression affects multiple part of the brain, and antidepressants can start fixing some parts before the other. In other words, you accidentally fix someone's motivation and agency before restoring their mood, and you suddenly have someone who is very energetically motivated to kill themselves.

Ultimately only she knows her inner mental state.

People often do not know their inner mental state. If you care to criticize this, then just about nothing in psychiatry remains standing. There is nothing, in principle, stopping a sane person from talking into thin air, and gibbering about the CIA watching him. Yet this is a reliable metric for psychotic illness. In a similar manner, what do you think the usual stereotypes are of how a depressed person looks and behaves?

The reason that psychiatry is not purely stamp-collecting is because said stamps allow us to mail cheque's we can often cash. A diagnosis of depression usually leads to a treatment of depression. It's not perfect, in very rare circumstances, such as hers, literally nothing worked. If she wants to lie after all of that (and there is a lot of "all of that"), then she's earned the right to kill herself.

How'd that work for Liberia?

What city do you live near? One can walk through the core of New York or Philadelphia without running into any criminal gangs. Homeless people, yes. One can even walk through the core of Newark, NJ without problems. All these cities have places you wouldn't want to be, but they aren't the core. This is in contrast to the late 1960s to early 1990s, when the cores of the major cities were indeed no-go zones or something like it.

Obviously there are cities where there's almost nowhere you want to be. Detroit. Camden, NJ. Baltimore (except the touristy waterfront area, and maybe an island around Johns Hopkins if that's been maintained). But those are still the exceptions.

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.

Alright, adding another dose of Vietnamese news that my old man relayed to me (I am not doing any verifications of what he said) a few weeks ago that I keep forgetting to add to this thread. There are currently major bureaucratic upheavals in Vietnam.

  1. Vietnam’s administratively used to be divided into provinces, which were divided into districts, which were divided into communes. For an American observer, this can roughly maps to states, counties, wards/subcounties/districts. Note the “used to be”. Vietnam will no longer have districts (the 2nd layer).
  2. Vietnam used to have 63 provinces, there are now only 34.
  3. Lots of major secondary effects from 1 and 2. There are now lots of bureaucrats getting “early retirement”. They are getting benefits package that altogether is definitely going to create meaningful inflationary pressure at the national level. There are also now fighting up and down the layers between the remaining bureaucrats who want to keep their government jobs. You obviously don’t need two head accountant (or accounting team) for the newly-merged province. Or how can you justify having your job as the commune head when the district head of the newly-dissolved-district wants to come down to take your job.
  4. Tertiary effects on businesses because of 3. Like most developing countries, there is a lot of palms to grease at all levels. And evidence of corruption from your opponent is great for your political safety net. It wasn’t uncommon to be called-to-the-police-station-for-some-tea before, but that was just the perks for people in power, now it’s about survival for them.
  5. New accounting laws were passed last year in December but only recently came into effect that would significantly enlarge Vietnam’s taxable base. Obviously, this and 4 is driving up demand for accountants who are good and loyal. I don’t know the exact details but it seems there were a lot of businesses (think a local furniture maker) that had nominal taxes or were untaxed or really easy to cook the books, now they will be under greater scrutiny.Oh and how can we forget all this under the looming tariffs which apparently Vietnam has the highest in SEA.

All in all, major turmoil, but we will also see how the effects of this shakes out over time.

He wasn’t talking about crime- making it a crime to commit suicide would be pointless. He was talking about suicide.

I was under the impression that the vast majority of the guns were bought after military service, skewing the stats. Now you prompted me to re-look, I see that this is not necessarily true.

They also do sell ammo, you just can't get it from the army apparently.

https://old.reddit.com/r/EuropeGuns/comments/185bamo/swiss_gun_laws_copy_pasta_format/ is supposedly vetted by a real Swiss guy and seems somewhat interesting without being blatant political fodder:

Many on the pro-gun side seems to think everyone has a gun at home, while many on the gun control side thinks ammunition is heavily regulated.

If you had Swiss gun laws introduced today in the US, both the pro-gun and the gun-control side would be outraged tomorrow, for various reasons.

but I really can't imagine why a household would ever need more than 24 paracetamol pills in a week

Four people with headaches easily covers that. And 24 pills is still enough to kill you, painfully. Making the vast majority of people who just want to keep APAP around the house go more often to the store and pay a higher per-unit price just to slightly inconvenience those who want to die isn't reasonable. Nor is it reasonable to go full retard like with pseudoephederine and have a registry to make sure no one is buying a fatal dose by going to multiple pharmacies.

Did you take that seriously? I would hope not, because the joke was that it's hard to get responses from participants in euthanasia because they're dead. If it's meant to be an educational aside, I appreciate it.

You know, now that I think about it, I think 50% of this was going off the memory of an AAQC of yours. Had to be you.

I suppose that means I remembered enough of it not to bring dishonor upon your name. And thank you for being polite enough not to point that out first.

I wanted to show my boss which diagram type I had in mind, but I forgot its name and couldn't describe it to Google. In the end, I had to search for came in a fluffer.

but had truly abysmal response rates for reasons I can't quite fathom

As someone with chronic health issues that knows the inside of the hospital fairly well, any communication from a health care provider that isn't explicitly from someone in scheduling or providing test results is assumed to be a new mystery bill you were never informed of verbally or in writing at any point, and 95% of the time that assumption is accurate. Sending the survey as a text message or email will have better hit rates. Also, this seems like it shouldn't need to be said but really, really does, make sure the survey actually works. I actually try to complete these when I get them (probably 8-12 a year) and fully half of them are dead links or malfunction in some other way. The institutional work ethic of an organization free from market forces and able to obfuscate its billing practices without consequence, imo, spills over into absolutely everything they do and encourages mediocrity at best.

Fair

If I were the mods I'd punish darkly hinting harsher than whatever it is you are afraid of being banned for.

More specifically, I would say that those Texans who see themselves as a nation would include most of Oklahoma and parts of New Mexico in that separate nationhood. Maybe parts of Louisiana, Colorado, Arkansas as well- but definitely not all or even most. Alaskans would not have this idea of honorary Alaskan-ness for anyone else. Assimilating requires moving to Alaska.

One can jump off a bridge instantly on a whim, and of the people who have done it and survived many said they regretted it instantly.

Probably because jumping off a bridge is awesome; it's the largest adrenaline rush I've had bar none including skydiving. Seems likely to (at least temporarily) break a suicidal mindset right there. I doubt the APA would approve bungi jumping even as an experimental therapy though.

Both of my neighbors are doctors and both are on their 2nd marriages with younger women they met at work. The surgeon had a huge new sprawling estate built to house not only his current wife and 4 young children, but also his 3 adult children from his first marriage who refuse to move out. His house actually has separate living rooms, kitchen, garages etc for both 'halves' of his family.

edit - neither are nurses. While it is common for doctors to "trade up" to younger women, the doctors and nurses I've spoken with (my wife, sister in law, and nephew are all nurses), say doctor/nurse affairs seldom lead to long term relationships as they all kind of hate doctors generally, as a class of people, and nurses personalities are often not pliant enough for the doctor's liking. Instead both of my neighbors married admin staff of some sort, one was an insurance liaison at the hospital, the other worked in patient intake.

I would say that in my own life, 5% of deaths "could have been timed better" sounds about right. Not necessarily a case of some exotic terminal illness, but cascading old age concerns. There's a clear point of no return, I could see someone pulling the trigger on it.

But it is my understanding that there is a noticeable and undeniable effect of guns on male suicide rates.

That was what I said above. I never disputed that guns increase suicides.

"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!"

To be clear I am specifically talking about the evidence based way in which increased access to firearms increases suicides. I do not support restricting gun rights in the general population on this grounds, but it is still a real problem.

You can acknowledge that guns have an impact on suicides and say this is not a reason to restrict rights.

At the close of the hearing, the suppression court granted the motion to suppress the statements Stevens-Reddy made after he invoked his right to counsel. It found that his invocation of the right to counsel was clear and unequivocal; his words after Detective Gallagher told him his attorney would be unavailable were equivocal; and his interaction with detectives after he asked for an attorney and was not re-Mirandized “may have been voluntary, but it certainly was not knowing and it was not an intelligent waiver.

Too retarded to understand his rights, courts give him a mulligan anyways.

Most of these claims arise in the rare periods of lucidity that bless/curse the severely demented. You get a few good minutes or hours to realize how your brain is rotting, often before your body has, and you realize how awful things have become. Then you slide back into the vague half-life of semi-consciousness, and I hope your mind is choosing to devote its last dregs of cognition to happier memories, instead of the living hell you currently dwell in.

I sometimes think that our approach to euthanasia is stymied by fundamental incompatibilities and contradictions with post-enlightenment principles. We highly prize autonomy and regard as foundational the need for consent. But the ones most in need of euthanasia are those who have declined to the point they no longer meaningfully can consent. And I find it somewhat cruel to imagine a person struggling with a terminal illness or other severe mental or physical suffering, being additionally burdened with having to take the sole decision of if and when to end their life. What a huge question to have to grapple with at the lowest point in your life.

I think there is a serious and tragic problem here; but we lack a suitable cultural programming to adequately solve it. Our focus on preservation of life to the exclusion of all else creates outcomes where people spend months or years existing, suffering, without hope of recovery. An insistence on the inviolable importance of consent means many of those who arguably need it most cannot access euthanasia under any system we could invent. And a belief that any such avenue must be systematized and accountable will create a system overloaded with bureaucracy, hoops to jump through and people covering their asses at every turn in case they go to jail. None of it will be the best interests of the patient.

As people have pointed out, the crime rate of people who legally carry is extremely low. Your scary scenarios do not describe reality.