Risk to life, including suicide?

The Corinthian

Jessica-Rabbit wrote: »

Actually it was mentioned on the 1st page, read the thread before you post:)

Where?

Frito

The Corinthian wrote: »

If it were a slippery slope argument, I would not have followed up the hypothetical extension of the logic with "I can't see that being legislated for".

It's a criticism of Prof Moran's point, not yours. And he was arguing a slippery slope.

TheCorinthian wrote: »

You claimed "parental responsibility can affect both genders equally where it occurs post-partum" which is false and you needed to be corrected on this myth. As for it having nothing to do with the X Case, neither does your average unplanned pregnancy, but I suspect it will also be potentially covered by the upcoming legislation - or are the proposed criteria that the woman is a suicide risk and victim of rape?

I will remind you that you initially raised the abdication of parental responsibility, which has no bearing to X.

TheCorinthian wrote: »

Both cases see a suicide risk that directly or indirectly cites an issue as the cause for that risk, except in one case you feel a viable treatment is to simply eliminate that issue and the other it's wrong to do so.

So if there is a question of context, you're going to have to explain what it is.

I already explained the context. In one instance suicidality emanates from an event contained within a woman's body, in the other, the event is outside her body. Your body integrity disorder example is better. I didn't see it listed in the ICD 10 (it may be specified in next revision). This is a trickier one, because I'm not an expert. My initial thought would be that this disorder will include some delusional ideation as a basis therefore any action on said delusion would necessitate assessment under the mental health act for psychosis. This is not analogous with abortion requests in context of suicidality.

TheCorinthian wrote: »

Your first error is claiming that I have argued that we should not legislate for the X Case - I've not; I've only argued that what is presently proposed is a classic "Irish solution to an Irish problem" - a flawed and half-baked solution.

Secondly, you appear to be ignoring the point that's been repeatedly been made where it is being questioned whether simply acceding to the demands of a suicidal person is an ethical or even rational treatment.

Firstly, you 'don't disagree' with Prof Moran's assertion that abortion is not a treatment for suicide. The supreme court has decided that in some instances it is. There is an interesting discussion over in A&A about the suicide clause and it's similar to your argument here.
Secondly, I gave you context, particularly where capacity is not in question. We accede because a failure to do so will prolong distress where other interventions are not indicated as helpful. We proceed with counselling to ensure the person is making an informed decision. I will also add that gender identity is reassigned even where individuals are distressed to the point of suicide.
Out of interest, how should X be legislated for?

Jessica-Rabbit

blue note wrote: »

If he doesn't kill himself, then he'll be liable for maintenance etc. If he does than obviously he won't.

It just won't come into it in any way, shape or form. I can understand an argument though where if the husbands life was at risk at the thought of having a child, then a case should be made that he should have the right to demand an abortion.

HERE IN BLACK AND WHITE FOR YOU The Corinthian

Jessica-Rabbit

The Corinthian wrote: »

Where?

Read the post above:)

Frito

Rev Hellfire wrote: »

I think the point being illustrated is that if suicide is a valid grounds for an abortion for a woman, then by extension logic suggests that it is also for a male.
Lets pretend then for argument that rather than a physical abortion it's a legal instrument being used in this case.

Like a gavel?
I wish logic would cease it's hypothetical-to-the-point-of-absurdity-position and just state which instance it has in mind. Then we can debate the merits and see if logic has, in fact, over-extended itself this time.

Rev Hellfire

Frito wrote: »

Like a gavel?

I'm sure if we set our minds to it we can come up with something better.

The Corinthian

Frito wrote: »

It's a criticism of Prof Moran's point, not yours. And he was arguing a slippery slope.

They didn't really though. Commenting that there may be negative consequences does not imply a slippery slope argument - otherwise any rebuttal would be a slippery slope argument. Moran principle point appears to clearly be that it makes no medical sense as a treatment:

"Four Irish psychiatrists...in the Dublin Maternity Hospitals for over 20 years have not observed one clinical case where abortion was the recommended psychiatric treatment - how can it suddenly become a recommended psychiatric treatment overnight in Ireland upon this legislation?"

I will remind you that you initially raised the abdication of parental responsibility, which has no bearing to X.

Does that mean that one cannot be corrected when they come out with something that's factually false, as you did, unless it's strictly on topic?

I already explained the context. In one instance suicidality emanates from an event contained within a woman's body, in the other, the event is outside her body. Your body integrity disorder example is better. I didn't see it listed in the ICD 10 (it may be specified in next revision). This is a trickier one, because I'm not an expert. My initial thought would be that this disorder will include some delusional ideation as a basis therefore any action on said delusion would necessitate assessment under the mental health act for psychosis. This is not analogous with abortion requests in context of suicidality.

So some rationales for suicide are founded in psychosis and others are legitimate? So what other reasons for suicide are legitimate in your view?

What you're now doing is trying desperately to legitimize some as valid reasons to seek to commit suicide which goes against any and all mental health practices in existence - wanting to kill yourself, for whatever reason, is never considered 'rational'.

Firstly, you 'don't disagree' with Prof Moran's assertion that abortion is not a treatment for suicide. The supreme court has decided that in some instances it is.

I'm aware of that, which is why my argument has been, from the beginning, that ever since the X Case, we've been digging a bigger and bigger hole which is at variance with psychiatric though - the aforementioned Irish solution to an Irish problem.

Secondly, I gave you context, particularly where capacity is not in question. We accede because a failure to do so will prolong distress where other interventions are not indicated as helpful. We proceed with counselling to ensure the person is making an informed decision.

Which is an argument that only works if we follow this nonsense of some rationales for suicide being considered legitimate, which I've already rejected.

I will also add that gender identity is reassigned even where individuals are distressed to the point of suicide.

Not actually true; gender reassignment is only adopted if the candidate for it is considered a genuine case for reassignment, not because they're suicidal. If you're rejected for reassignment and become a suicide risk, they don't suddenly change their mind and accept you - they treat you as a suicide risk instead.

Out of interest, how should X be legislated for?

Either to legalize abortion across the board or maintain the ban, and instead improve access to mental health treatment for those in risk of suicide. Not this ridiculous limbo that pretends to maintain the ban, while also loosening it under the misguided argument that it is a valid medical treatment.

Jessica-Rabbit wrote: »

HERE IN BLACK AND WHITE FOR YOU The Corinthian

Fair enough - didn't spot it. However the poster was playing Devil's advocate rather than actually arguing this, I believe. As Rev Hellfire pointed out, no one is seriously advocating this.

pwurple

Either to legalize abortion across the board or maintain the ban, and instead improve access to mental health treatment for those in risk of suicide. Not this ridiculous limbo that pretends to maintain the ban, while also loosening it under the misguided argument that it is a valid medical treatment.

+1
Successive govts have tied themselves in ever more complex knots with this issue because of the reluctance to tackle it. Here comes another brushing it under the carpet mechanism.

Why these ridiculous referendums were brought is still beyond me, and this new legislation is another brick in the wall of stupidity built around abortion.

We are now expecting someone to sit in judgement on a womans motivation for requesting an abortion. Who that someone is, and what their qualifications are is open. The woman has to prove in some way that she is mentally/physically unwell and that an abortion is the cure... How is that even possible? And even more to the point, what is the waiting list for this HSE approval? Let me guess... A few months? irish solution is right.

The irish public conscience is struggling with this one, big time. People say things like... I don't agree with abortion, unless it's rape, incest, suicide, unviable fetus, or cancer treatment, or heart complaint, etc etc etc. What they are trying NOT to say, is the only place they don't want to see abortion used is as contraception. The recipient must be deemed to be Pure and wholesome in motivation. Otherwise, on the boat with ya.

Frito

We'll have to agree to differ about the slippery slope issue.

The Corinthian wrote: »

"Four Irish psychiatrists...in the Dublin Maternity Hospitals for over 20 years have not observed one clinical case where abortion was the recommended psychiatric treatment - how can it suddenly become a recommended psychiatric treatment overnight in Ireland upon this legislation?"

And go back one year, he will find X.
I find myself agreeing with you to some extent regarding the issue of suicidality and abortion, but I take issue with some of the ways you get to your position.
Take Prof Moran's example. If he wished to redefine the scope of psychiatry input within this legislation to solely assessing suicidality and it's context, although I am inclined to disagree, I would consider it further. I cannot agree with his position that haven't yet means will never.

TheCorinthian wrote: »

So some rationales for suicide are founded in psychosis and others are legitimate? So what other reasons for suicide are legitimate in your view?
What you're now doing is trying desperately to legitimize some as valid reasons to seek to commit suicide which goes against any and all mental health practices in existence - wanting to kill yourself, for whatever reason, is never considered 'rational'.

Your mistake is assuming all suicide is irrational, therefore my example of a what is a legitimate reason for suicide is any reason, as long as it has been made by a competent person. You'll see that I'm not arguing specific events or end result here, only that the process of decision-making is unimpaired by mental disorder as defined in the mental health act.

TheCorinthian wrote: »

gender reassignment is only adopted if the candidate for it is considered a genuine case for reassignment, not because they're suicidal.

I will concede this point and as I cannot think of another situation where treatment is based solely on suicidality, I must revert to precedence.

TheCorinthian wrote: »

Either to legalize abortion across the board or maintain the ban, and instead improve access to mental health treatment for those in risk of suicide. Not this ridiculous limbo that pretends to maintain the ban, while also loosening it under the misguided argument that it is a valid medical treatment.

My preference would be for the eighth amendment to be repealed. I cannot accept a ban, regardless of mental health service provision. But we still have the X case, I argue for it as a stepping stone.

The Corinthian

pwurple wrote: »

And even more to the point, what is the waiting list for this HSE approval? Let me guess... A few months? irish solution is right.

I've always thought, as an aside, that this will be the likely irony of legalization of abortion in Ireland; even were it completely legalized, we'd probably still end up largely exporting it to countries such as the UK and the Netherlands due to the poor level of health care we have in Ireland, as well as the added anonymity that doing so abroad would afford.

Frito wrote: »

Take Prof Moran's example. If he wished to redefine the scope of psychiatry input within this legislation to solely assessing suicidality and it's context, although I am inclined to disagree, I would consider it further. I cannot agree with his position that haven't yet means will never.

From the article here he really doesn't do anything other than address the issue from the viewpoint of treating mental health, although he does use examples, such as applying the same logic to male mental health, to highlight how daft the proposal is.

Even if not directly applicable to the narrow confines of the topic at hand, showing how introducing principles can lead to stupid scenarios when applied elsewhere is both a valid and good means of testing those principles.

That doesn't imply there would be a silppery slope ('male abortion' would likely be blocked by the government anyway on the basis that it would cost them too much), but to highlight flaws in a thread of logic.

Your mistake is assuming all suicide is irrational, therefore my example of a what is a legitimate reason for suicide is any reason, as long as it has been made by a competent person. You'll see that I'm not arguing specific events or end result here, only that the process of decision-making is unimpaired by mental disorder as defined in the mental health act.

I think you'll find that we never accept suicide to be a rational act in Western society, and neither does the mental health profession.

So, unless we want to radically redefine Western morality completely, independent of the question of abortion, we have to accept that position.

My preference would be for the eighth amendment to be repealed. I cannot accept a ban, regardless of mental health service provision. But we still have the X case, I argue for it as a stepping stone.

I completely understand that you might from that perspective, but then you're supporting it not because it is the right treatment for a suicidal patient, but because of ideological reasons.

And that's kind of the problem with this entire topic and the legislation. My objection is not that it brings us closer to abortion on demand or not, but that it's just another daft way of dealing with a political football that's been haunting Irish politics since the X Case broke.

I mean seriously, the right to travel in our constitution? On one side we legally define abortion as a serious crime, yet we give a constitutional right to people to travel for the express purpose of carrying out that crime - it's (legally) like guaranteeing Fr Brendan Smyth a right to travel to Cambodia.

Frito

The Corinthian wrote: »

I think you'll find that we never accept suicide to be a rational act in Western society, and neither does the mental health profession.

So, unless we want to radically redefine Western morality completely, independent of the question of abortion, we have to accept that position.

I wonder if our scope of what is rational differs given your inclusion of Western morality. I don't mean to argue that suicide is encouraged or that we shouldn't offer help - there would certainly be ethical implications. I am referencing a legal framework to argue that if we cannot prevent people from acting on suicide then we must accept it is rational. Even if we don't like their decision.

Rev Hellfire

Frito wrote: »

I am referencing a legal framework to argue that if we cannot prevent people from acting on suicide then we must accept it is rational.

Surely you are not trying to argue that just because we can not prevent some act we must therefore accept it; does this logic apply to anything or is suicide some sort of special case.

The Corinthian

Frito wrote: »

I am referencing a legal framework to argue that if we cannot prevent people from acting on suicide then we must accept it is rational.

How is suicide prompted by pregnancy any less preventable than one prompted by financial crisis?

clairefontaine

Ive been struggling to follow the logic of the greater and public argument around exemptions in the case of a threat of suicide.

So abortion is a crime, the ending of an innocent life in Irish law.

But if the pregnancy makes you suicidal you can have an exemption? Is this because of hormonally induced pre natal depression or psychosis? Surely if it is down to prenatal depression or psychosis medication would suffice that would lead to more rational choices or at least rational thinking behind whatever choice is made whether it be suicide, abortion, or neither.

What is the science behind it? It makes the health service look bonkers.

iptba

For what it's worth, a letter in the Irish Independent pointing out that whether they're "pro-choice" or "pro-life", fathers/men don't end up getting a say:

Have vote, but no say

09 JUNE 2013

Madam– A few years ago a man knocked on my door at two in the morning in a highly agitated state, imploring me to help him get an immediate emergency hearing with a judge, to prevent his wife going abroad the next morning to have an abortion.

continues at:
http://www.independent.ie/opinion/letters/have-vote-but-no-say-29331115.html

Zombrex

iptba wrote: »

How can somebody who has little or no money provide financially for the child (a responsibility that he is wishing to avoid): he has to use his body to earn that money.

Don' be stupid, there isn't a country in the western world that would require a man to give up his bodily privacy in order to make money.

What you think the Irish government mandates that father sell their kidneys to pay child support.

There isn't a facepalm large enough for this thread :rolleyes:

iptba wrote: »

I'm saying it is like arguing that he doesn't consent for his body to be used to provide financially for the unborn foetus/child.

He doesn't have to consent for his body to be used to provide financial support for the foetus. No country I am aware of requires someone to sell their body in order to pay for child support.

Zombrex

Rev Hellfire wrote: »

I think the point being illustrated is that if suicide is a valid grounds for an abortion for a woman, then by extension logic suggests that it is also for a male.

It would be if men had babies. Then they could abort the baby if the male claimed he would commit suicide if it wasn't removed from his body.

But since men don't have babies ...

iptba

Zombrex wrote: »

iptba wrote: »

How can somebody who has little or no money provide financially for the child (a responsibility that he is wishing to avoid): he has to use his body to earn that money.

What you think the Irish government mandates that father sell their kidneys to pay child support.

No, didn't say that.
Being pregnant isn't the same as selling your kidneys.

Given the tone of your comment, perhaps that deserves "Facepalm back at you".

Zombrex

clairefontaine wrote: »

Ive been struggling to follow the logic of the greater and public argument around exemptions in the case of a threat of suicide.

So abortion is a crime, the ending of an innocent life in Irish law.

But if the pregnancy makes you suicidal you can have an exemption? Is this because of hormonally induced pre natal depression or psychosis? Surely if it is down to prenatal depression or psychosis medication would suffice that would lead to more rational choices or at least rational thinking behind whatever choice is made whether it be suicide, abortion, or neither.

What is the science behind it? It makes the health service look bonkers.

You can have an abortion if there is a significant risk that continuing the pregnancy will harm you, and this includes if you are suicidal and will harm yourself. This stems from the x case where the girl who was raped was suicidal and afaik had already attempted to kil herself.

Zombrex

iptba wrote: »

No, didn't say that. Facepalm back at you.

You said men are forced to give up their right to bodily autonomy in order to pay child support.

Please explain in what messed up notion of a universe you think that is true. Give me one example of where that happens in any western country? Perhaps North Korea maybe ...

iptba

Zombrex wrote: »

You said men are forced to give up their right to bodily autonomy in order to pay child support.

Please explain in what messed up notion of a universe you that is true. Give me one example of where that happens in any western country? Perhaps North Korea maybe ...

What I said was*, if one doesn't pay child support, one can face sanctions e.g. being sent to jail (quite common in the US, for example). So if somebody has a child one doesn't want, if a man has little or no money to provide financially for the child, they can be forced to use their body to earn the money.

This is in the context of comments like this:

Zombrex wrote:

iptba wrote:

fathers are given responsibilities because they were involved in the creation of their child, which compete against the rights they have to be free to do what they want with their own money and body.

What is a father forced to do to his own body without his consent as a result of having a child?

I didn't say it was the same as selling organs.

*or was thinking of - can't remember now - you're replying to messages from 6 months ago

Rev Hellfire

Zombrex wrote: »

It would be if men had babies. Then they could abort the baby if the male claimed he would commit suicide if it wasn't removed from his body.

But since men don't have babies ...

We've already established that we aren't suggesting women be forced to have abortions, but for example men to be able to abort any legal and social ties to the mother and child.

Men may not give birth to the baby, but they are bound to it for up to 21 years after. So the argument that since they don't have babies then they don't have a say is a nonsense.

Zombrex

iptba wrote: »

What I said was*, if one doesn't pay child support, one can face sanctions e.g. being sent to jail (quite common in the US, for example). So if somebody has a child one doesn't want, if a man has little or no money to provide financially for the child, they can be forced to use their body to earn the money.

Which, as you seem to realize now, is nothing to do with bodily autonomy.

iptba wrote: »

I didn't say it was the same as selling organs.

You claimed it violated his bodily autonomy just like the woman physically having the foetus inside her. I'm asking you how does it do that, selling organs was just one possible example.

Though by the sounds of it you realize now what a silly comparison that was. The idea that taking a job violates your bodily autonomy is frankly laughable.

Zombrex

Rev Hellfire wrote: »

We've already established that we aren't suggesting women be forced to have abortions, but for example men to be able to abort any legal and social ties to the mother and child.

Men may not give birth to the baby, but they are bound to it for up to 21 years after. So the argument that since they don't have babies then they don't have a say is a nonsense.

That concept is based on the very flawed idea that what is happening when a woman has an abortion is that she is "aborting any legal and social ties with the child"

In reality all the woman is doing is refusing to give continued consent to the foetus being inside her using her body. A consequence of that is that the foetus will probably die, and by virtue of not existing any more neither the mother nor the father will have a baby to care for and thus no reasonability to it. But that is a consequence of the foetus being dead, not some legal agreement the mother takes with the State.

The man has the same right to bodily privacy as the woman and can refuse to also give consent to the foetus being inside him. But since the foetus isn't inside him anyway this is never an issue. As pointed out to iptba no one forces the man to give up bodily privacy for his child.

This point has been made a few times, I think people are just ignoring it because it doesn't suit the agenda. People prefer to pretend abortion is abdicating legal responsibility for the child so they can complain/wishfulfill the idea that men should be allowed do the same thing even when the child still exists.

The Corinthian

Zombrex wrote: »

You said men are forced to give up their right to bodily autonomy in order to pay child support.

The discussion has moved on in the last six months Zomb. You may want to address more recent arguments.

Rev Hellfire

Zombrex wrote: »

That concept is based on the very flawed idea that what is happening when a woman has an abortion is that she is "aborting any legal and social ties with the child".

With the exception of abortion on medical ground, that's exactly what women are doing. They're terminating the pregnancy because they don't want to have the child.

And if being suicidal because you are unwilling to become a parent is valid grounds for a woman then by extension it is equally true for a male.

imho etc.

clairefontaine

Rev Hellfire wrote: »

With the exception of abortion on medical ground, that's exactly what women are doing. They're terminating the pregnancy because they don't want to have the child.

And if being suicidal because you are unwilling to become a parent is valid grounds for a woman then by extension it is equally true for a male.

imho etc.

They might be doing it because they don't want to be pregnant. Or maybe they've already had four c sections and don't want the risks with another one or maybe they have an auto immune disease and can't deal with a pregnancy because their body will be under attack or maybe they don't want to risk their lives in Irish maternity care.

iptba

Zombrex wrote: »

Though by the sounds of it you realize now what a silly comparison that was.

No, I believe the general point I made still has value.

I do realize that you seem to use a mocking style of argument which isn't particularly appealing. I haven't worked out whether this is to do white knighting/chivalry/you being a feminist/having a penchant for arguing against men's rights or whether you would equally be inclined to use the same style to support men's rights or challenge a feminist position in another context.

Rev Hellfire

clairefontaine wrote: »

They might be doing it because they don't want to be pregnant. Or maybe they've already had four c sections and don't want the risks with another one or maybe they have an auto immune disease and can't deal with a pregnancy because their body will be under attack or maybe they don't want to risk their lives in Irish maternity care.

So basically what I said its either for a medical reason or simply that they don't want to have a child. Glad you agree.

eviltwin

Rev Hellfire wrote: »

So basically what I said its either for a medical reason or simply that they don't want to have a child. Glad you agree.

There is a middle ground there, there are many women who are having abortions who in other circumstances would be very happy to have a baby but for whatever reason feel they can't at that time. Sometimes its the timing of the pregnancy or the circumstances of it rather than the pregnancy itself that is the issue.