I read that the police were extinguishing the guy who set himself on fire yesterday only two minutes after it began. Obviously, the guy did not want to live. Putting out the fire so quickly does not ease his suffering and would only increase it if he were to live. As long as nothing else is at risk of catching fire perhaps it would be best to stay away. What do you think?
In the moment, you’re not 100% certain the guy wanted to be on fire. The only thing you can do in this case at least is attempt to extinguish.
I mean, if someone pours gasoline over his head and lights himself on fire, you can somewhat reasonably infer an intentionality.
But we can say that with any suicide, if a guy stands on a bridge holding a rock tied to his leg then we will still try to save them because we understand they’re going through something.
That’s not the question here. It’s about intention, not your reaction.
Anyway, the equivalent here would be rather jumping after the guy to rescue him 2min after he jumped. You may endanger yourself and you might rescue a half-braindead shell of a person.
Don’t kid yourself, besides talking him out of jumping, nobody would do anything.
There’s thousands of cases of people putting themselves in danger to try to save suicidal people, including jumping into deep bodies of water.
However, my point was on intention, someone committing suicide isn’t right in the head so to say “well they did it on purpose so we shouldn’t help” is silly.
Also many suicide failures have reportedly had second thought even right after they attempted, such as on the way off the bridge. All we can do is help them if possible, so that if there was regret they might be able to recover their life. The self immolation is a tough example because it’s true that survival means a long road of pain, but I don’t think we should try and draw lines to determine who should and shouldn’t be saved (again, if possible). I’d also rather be hated by them for trying to help than to think that I could have done something but chose an easier route of inaction by mental justification.
Again, that’s not my point.
But again anyway, it’s also silly to assume they’re not right in the head. You don’t know their situation. And it’s even sillier to assume that I implied helping them would be wrong. Helping them while endangering yourself and making the situation for the other guy even worse is just stupid.
But again anyway, it’s also silly to assume they’re not right in the head.
Sane people don’t try to kill themselves
You can be sane and depressed. People also opt for assisted suicide if in a lot of pain or with a low quality of life.
The exact definition of sanity is a cultural choice.
Not true
It’s not intention. It’s the expected quality of life afterwards. I work with kids who had no desire to die when they fell into a pool, choked on something, etc. Sometimes…
It’s about intention, not your reaction.
Think again: Your own action is all that you can decide upon.
Later you can try to judge and to grumble and to smartass, but then you cannot change things anymore with that.
I mean we make an attempt to stop most suicides on the basis that they’re pursued from a kind of irrational train of thought. This isn’t to say that that’s always actually the case, but we can’t be sure of that, so most people wouldn’t look at a guy jumping of a bridge and then say “hey do a flip on the way down”, you know? We can kind of assume it’s more of a last resort, than like a casual pastime or decision that you might just kinda make cause you kinda felt like it. That’s just talking about the psychology of people who try to kill themselves mostly, though, for the vast majority it’s as a last resort rather than due to a more “rational” reason, or, a more philosophically motivated reason.
It’s a much safer assumption to assume they’re irrational, anyways, for the same reason that capital punishment is not really a great idea. If you take the opposite as a blanket decision, it’s irreversible. If you put out someone who’s on fire, or otherwise save someone who’s suicidal. you could always just kill them later.
They might have heavy regret once ignited, though.
I read an article many years ago about people who attempted to kill themselves and how almost all were happy they survived. There was also someone who set himself on fire and survived, extremely badly burned, his urine was black for a while, really bad. But even he was glad he was still alive. So I guess you should always help. If someone really wants to die they can always try again.
I’m guessing there’s a bit of survivorship bias here. People who really want to die will probably choose surer methods, and/or try again and again.
Of course there is. You cannot ask dead people if they regretted the attempt but it was too late. But just going from a very high regret rate among survivors I think it’s quite safe to assume many of those who were successful would also been happy to have survived.
deleted by creator
I guess the options are:
Put them out and fix them.
Leave them alone.
Kill them more quickly.Nobody is going to stand and watch (or even speed up) something like that without suffering massive trauma themselves.
Right or wrong, they were doing what they thought best and what I imagine most think is best.
Anything else is academicalThe presence of fire in a place not designed for it is a threat to the safety of others.
Maybe nobody was hurt, but if the authorities had neglected to put him out, and then someone WAS hurt, that would be on them. So, best to put him out. He can deal with the consequences of his actions.
the fuck do you mean nobody was hurt, nigga lit himself on fire and some asshole let him burn for two minutes and then put him out. He’s never going to know a moment without pain that you and I, hopefully, could never even imagine.
The topic at hand, to which I was responding, was whether or not anyone else was hurt.
I was watching live on TV as it happened. They were trying to put him out several times. He poured an accelerant on himself which likely made it a lot more difficult to put him out.
Obviously, the guy did not want to live.
I’m not sure we can make such a determination. Self immolation is traditionally a form of protest. One can sacrifice oneself for awareness even with a desire to go on living. It’s not generally an escape attempt chosen when losing a battle with depression.
No means no.
I put out all fires I see. If you want to die use inert gas.
You must be a real buzz kill at festivals and camping.
Nobody wants this guy around a campfire either.
I don’t want anybody else around a campfire so fair enough, I guess
#BannedAtTheOltmpics
#FiredFromThePowerPlant
That’s how I’m gonna go.
dark humor ahead
Just let the man cook
police were extinguishing the guy
Obviously, the guy did not want to live.
Human life is to be protected, rescued etc. in all cases.
We need to stay absolutely clear with that, because everything else creates terrible moral problems, for you and all the people around.
And if you want to start thinking such thoughts right there in a situation, it costs way too much valuable time.
Exceptions need to have very clear and very strict rulesThe whole society should agree with these rules. The responsible persons (doctors for example) need to be educated properly.
Human life is to be protected, rescued etc. in all cases.
Where does a DNR and medical assistance in dying fit in this?
There I would expect you to read also the other parts of my comment…
Yes, but you also said it should be protected in “all cases” but went on about “exceptions”. Assistance in dying doesn’t fit this criteria that would make it acceptable as most definitely not everyone agrees with it. Some DNRs don’t either. The idea that the “whole society” needs to agree is also pretty disputable, and comes with its own set of moral issues. The question of professionals being “properly” trained on the matter as well (what does this mean?).
I just think it’s a lot more complex than “save everyone always”, and the exceptions aren’t that straightforward.
I think his mention of doctors at the end while talking about exceptions is what he is talking about. He was not specific but it was clear, at least to me, that he was talking about assited suicide, dnr, and such.
I don’t disagree with you entirely but there are some areas that do have defined societal rules where life saving is not the legal obligation. Now, this varies by state (some have samaritan laws) but many places you are not under a legal obligation to administer life saving aid. For example, providing CPR in areas considered medical backcountry.
I think it’s already a mixed bag and the default position is not “protect/rescue human life in all cases” legally. Morally I would say it’s a personal decision, I know I would most of the time in scenarios I can think of but obviously there are scenarios I can’t think of.
My point is it’s already murky and there are already exceptions.
Edit: actually the more that I think about it the more exceptions I can find your thesis. The first thing they teach you in First Aid/Cpr and the reason my entire class failed and we had to redo a 10 minute exercise to pass is that the #1 priority is your own safety. You have to secure the scene. If saving someone requires endangering yourself you are CLEARLY and unambiguously told to not attempt life saving aid until you can minimize or eliminate risks to yourself. Also see: Yellowstone hotspring rescue attempts, river rescue attempts, etc.
So again, nothing is clear and human life is not to be protected as a rule in “all” cases. EMS and police are not even obligated to save anyone in all cases.
There are no Good Samaritan laws anywhere that require life saving aid.
They only go so far as to require that you alert emergency services; (though not every state goes that far.)
What Good Samaritan laws really do is provide protections as long as you’re stay to reasonable actions.
For example, it’s common for CPR to crack ribs. Without these protections, you’d be liable for that. (For the record, even if you do want to help; etc, always check to see if it’s safe first. Be selfish. You can’t save shit if you’re a body on the ground, too.)
Human life is to be protected, rescued etc. in all cases.
Exceptions need to have very clear and very strict rules
Bruh.
Human life is to be protected, rescued etc. in all cases.
We need to stay absolutely clear with that, because everything else creates terrible moral problems, for you and all the people around.
lol. What a perfectly black and white world you live in. Your harsh reality causes a lot of terrible moral problems too. Like assisted suicide for people who are terminally ill. You would insist they live in excruciating pain, unable to communicate, or otherwise live life without extensive life support; simply because …. Why again?
We should have a right to suicide (though maybe not in a manner that puts others at risk.)
I think that’s where this commenter was leaning, though, with their final comment. Assisted suicide should absolutely be available to those suffering terminal illnesses and the like. But, the rules surrounding it must be very clear and anyone assisting suicide under those rules must be very well educated.
In the absence of assisted suicide rules, or where existing ones don’t apply to a specific case, then human life should be protected, by default.
Naw. Why should I be bound by your religious views?
It’s either my life and I have the right to end it, or not. If I have the right to end it, I should be allowed to get competent help to do so.
I agree that one should not suicide, but, if I knew that I would be falsely imprisoned just because I mentioned it to my doctor (“for my benefit”) then I can never actually get real, meaningful help away from it.
Further, now, how do you define pain? Physical pain? Emotional pain?
Jesus, you couldn’t possibly have misinterpreted my reply more than you just have:
- No religious view was expressed - I’ve been a staunch atheist for nearly 40 years, since I was old enough to tell my mum I didn’t believe in any of it.
- I never said people shouldn’t suicide - I’m very much a supporter of assisted suicide. I’m saying that, if the rules around assisted suicide don’t apply, then the default action for people sworn to protect human life should be to stop suicides. You know - the point of this entire post.
- Who said anything about pain? No need to put words in my mouth.
deleted by creator
It’s pretty simple. If they didn’t want to live, why didn’t they self-immolate in a place where no one can put them out? By choosing a place with people they implicitly accepted that there might be people there that would try to not let them die. Maybe they even subconsciously hoped to be stopped.
Stopping physical harm happening to others is a very natural way of behavior. It’s almost certain it happens when a couple of people are present. You can’t ever blame someone for trying it.
And then there’s the case of open fire being able to spread and hurt others.
From what I understand, there is very little one can experience that’s worse than being a full body burn victim. Whoever intervened did the man no favours.
The Japanese radiation man has it worse. He is the undisputed world heavyweight champion of painful death.
This whole YouTube channel is filled with interviews of people, families and children making the best of lives many would feel not worth living. Even some failed suicide attempts leaving people with no face but some times better off than before
Its not up to the first reactors to decide if that life is worth living.
Although I feel that people should have the right to decide on their own if they want to live or not, they should be offered and given propped help before.
I’m mixed, first responders shouldn’t decide what lives are worth living, but I also believe in the right to die.
I think we all know how fire works. The moment they set themselves on fire, they’ll be in excruciating pain. Doesn’t mean it’ll be a quick, or even certain death. If you put them out, you could be prolonging their pain, or you could be saving their life. And some things can’t be undone. Just try to act in good faith…
That said, there’s a big difference between 1 sec after the fire and 90 secs. There’s definitely a tipping point where it’s more humane to just let them die instead of hours later.
Its not really possible for a human to make that decision in the moment. The only option is to try to save them.
You can’t be sure he wasn’t set on fire by someone else ! Plus he might have changed his mind, or extinguish on his own later than you’d have out him out, staying alive and suffering even more.
I’d maybe make an exception for someone calmly sitting as they burn, as I think the Buddhist monks who did this in China were. In those cases it’s pretty easy to see they wanted to be on fire.
But a flaming flailing guy needs to be extinguished, whatever the reason he is on fire.
I’ll be a bit blunt, but at what point shall we leave some things to natural selection… Very often, those who set themselves on fire, die very soon after due to infections…
The bigger problem is, in this case, the inability of the system/society to recognise and deal with mental health issues on time or at all… About a quarter of Americans reported Mental health issues… In the EU only about 10% or less in countries with high social awareness…
So, I’d rather ask how to prevent those things happening in the future?
They have done a lot of studies and the best way they’ve found is not to highlight and report on suicides to avoid copycats, not to validate their reasons for doing it to avoid others feeling it’s a worthwhile option and to provide easy and repercussion free mental health counseling as well as practical material support.
Sadly no one takes any of these seriously, the press have got better at reporting deaths by suicide respectfully and quietly but social media always spreads them twice as loud, even lemmy was pretty unanimously angry at meta for doing the right thing and reducing engagement on news stories celebrating and validating the last person to do this because they supported his message - now everyone is passing this giuys manifesto around and saying he had some good points, don’t be surprised if it happens again.
The real problem for this guy was biological and cultural, he had a problem in his brain which our culture made hard for him to deal with in any reasonable way and I think the amount of hyperbole and exaggeration in the common discourse is a huge part if it. Especially on weird corners of reddit and bubble communities like lemmy.
Yes billionaires are awful and there are cultural problems but it’s the same issue with so many things, the individual people are just regular humans in a good position in a bad society - they’re not actually evil in the true sense of the word, they’re not hell bent on destroying the world- just like most of us they think they’re good people doing good things. Likewise the government is just our best attempt at organizing the country and its a complex mess with all sorts of problems which lead to people making poor or selfish choices but it’s not a conspiracy to hurt people and they don’t have plans to enslave us or turn us into weird human animal hybrids…
[OK so Saudia arabias linear citie did plan to make human animal hybrids using gene editing but they scalled that back and it certainly wasn’t a plan other governments were in on, I don’t think his own government was really in on it]
If we want to help calm things we should try to remind everyone that really humans aren’t so bad and that life is difficult, uncomfortable and often tragic but it’s also incredibly mundane and fairly meaningless which is OK, actually its kinda nice.
I can certainly see the point.
However at least in America self immolation and self harm in general pretty well remove your autonomy based on the assumption you’re not mentally well enough to make a choice either way.
Even then, if you look at the guy who just did it at Trump’s trial and the guy who did it to protest Israel they were on two different levels of cohesion in their reasoning and came to the same decision.
So to answer your question, depends I guess.
