But I’m curious as to what an anarchist or left-libertarian response to a suicidal person with no connection to reality
Well, like quasibill, I’m speaking only for myself here.
I think that, ethically speaking, you have to distinguish (at least) two different issues here — the issue of whether it’s ever justified to forcibly restrain someone momentarily to keep them from killing or hurting themselves during an episode of extreme distress, from the issue of whether it’s ever justified to lock someone up in a closed-in psychoprison for an indefinite period of time, or to force psychiatric treatments on them against their will, unless and until you (or some other third party) determines that they are no longer a danger
to themselves. I’m not tremendously comfortable with the former, but I’m far more comfortable with the idea that it might in some cases be justified than I am with the latter, which I am quite certain is never justified, and I think that allowing that momentary restraint in emergencies might sometimes be O.K. does not commit anybody to the latter position. And the slope between the two is not especially slippery; admitting the propriety of temporary restraint in a moment of crisis where you have a good likelihood that the person restrained will be O.K. with, or thankful for, having been restrained very soon, once the crisis has passed, is a far cry from admitting the propriety of long-term confinement, straitjackets, strip searches, forced drugging, etc., etc., etc. over a period of days, weeks, months, or even years.
As for momentary restraint, I’m inclined to say something roughly like what quasibill is saying. If you think that the person is temporarily impaired in her judgment and will thank you for having saved her after the crisis passes, then go ahead and intervene as long as it is possible to do so within the bounds of proportionality (blocking a doorway or grabbing someone from a ledge is one thing; locking them in a padded room or shooting them up with thorazine is another). The critical thing is precisely that if you choose to intervene like that, you do so at your own risk, rather than with the forceful backing of the legal apparatus. If you were right then her ex post facto decision to thank you rather than complain and seek restraint against any further attempts to hurt or kill herself will be enough to ratify your decision. If you were wrong and she decides to take legal action against you, then it’s perfectly fitting that you should be held accountable for your interference, rather than being insulated from the consequences of your actions by legal privilege or professional status.
In a case where someone is suicidal, not as a matter of temporary crisis, but as a long-term and fixed state of emotion and will, and this is announced and well known, then I think that they should be left in peace to kill themselves, if they so choose, rather than being forced to live. That may be terribly sad; it may be foolish or even crazy; but everyone does have a right to end their own lives.
Speaking from the left side of my mouth, I’d also certainly agree with you that community offers of help are extremely valuable and I would like to live in, and would help support, a society in which people with severe emotional, cognitive, or other mental problems have lots of caring people and lots of safe places that they can fall back on for help when and if they need it. And, for that matter, lots of drugs to take, including powerful psychotropic drugs, if that’s what helps them get through the day. I think the important thing is to eliminate forced treatment,
and in general to disrupt the pseudoscientific medical model on which these kind of services are currently offered.
Speaking generally, I think that the medicalization of everyday life, and the inability of many people in our culture to talk about any of the things that are most important to us without first running them through a quasi-medical set of diagnostic categories, is a very serious cultural problem, closely intertwined both with many cultural forms of authoritarianism and with the ever-lengthening grasp of the therapeutic State, and that that kind of pseudomedical rhetoric is something that anarchists and left-libertarians ought to be challenging as strenuously as possible.
]]>I think that y’all are definitely on the right track here, but I think that the complexity of these questions highlights the fact that, while tons of work has been done within anarchist or libertarian circles treating contractual relations between independent, rational adults, there is a lot of work that still needs to be done on fiduciary (or, non-arms-length) relationships, including: Parent-Guardian/Child-Ward, Trustee/Beneficiary, Agent/Principal, etc. These sorts of relationships involve certain powers (that one party) that one party may have over the welfare of another, but where that party has an obligation to exercise those powers for the benefit of that other, here’s where things like duties of loyalty and care, and strictures against self-dealing and conflicts of interest, need to thought through and re-cast if necessary to ensure that they don’t involve anything that would be violative of libertarian rights.
If either of you could point me in the direction of sources dealing with these issues, I would be much obliged.
Cheers, Araglin
]]>I clearly don’t speak for anyone but myself, but as a left-libertarian, my simple answer would be that a person could do what he thought was right to save a community member. The difference being from now is that there is absolutely no concept of privilege in such actions – the “rescuer” has no immunity from the repercussions of their actions, and a jury of their community members will possibly get a chance to determine if their actions were reasonably designed to rescue someone who who was no longer competent to be making their own decisions. If the “rescuer” oversteps the bounds of community morality, he can (and should) be held responsible.
Unfortunately, I can’t be more specific than that, because we’re talking about counter-factuals and localized morality. But I’m fairly confident that the system would be far less prone to abuse for two reasons – one, the loss of privilege will discipline the actor, and two, the fact that it is a community member, who likely has a personal relationship with the incompetent, means it is more likely that the incompetent will treated with compassion and as a human being, not as a “ward.”
Not perfect, granted. But better? I think so.
]]>But I’m curious as to what an anarchist or left-libertarian response to a suicidal person with no connection to reality–an extreme schizophrenic, perhaps–would be. Community offers of help, perhaps?
]]>