1) Be nice and; have fun
Doxxing, trolling, sealioning, racism, toxicity and dog-whistling are not welcomed in AskLemmy. Remember what your mother said: if you can't say something nice, don't say anything at all. In addition, the site-wide Lemmy.world terms of service also apply here. Please familiarize yourself with them
2) All posts must end with a '?'
This is sort of like Jeopardy. Please phrase all post titles in the form of a proper question ending with ?
3) No spam
Please do not flood the community with nonsense. Actual suspected spammers will be banned on site. No astroturfing.
4) NSFW is okay, within reason
Just remember to tag posts with either a content warning or a [NSFW] tag. Overtly sexual posts are not allowed, please direct them to either !asklemmyafterdark@lemmy.world or !asklemmynsfw@lemmynsfw.com.
NSFW comments should be restricted to posts tagged [NSFW].
5) This is not a support community.
It is not a place for 'how do I?', type questions.
If you have any questions regarding the site itself or would like to report a community, please direct them to Lemmy.world Support or email info@lemmy.world. For other questions check our partnered communities list, or use the search function.
6) No US Politics.
Please don't post about current US Politics. If you need to do this, try !politicaldiscussion@lemmy.world or !uspolitics@lemmy.world
7) No Hit-and-Run questions.
Please don't delete your post for no apparent reason. If you plan on deleting a question later, say so in the post, or if you feel that you have a good reason to remove it, message a mod beforehand. It's not fair to the ones who took their time to answer, and it's not in the spirit of the community.
8) No Bots.
Posts or comments from bots, LLM's, AIs, Neural Networks, Transformers, or Marvin the Paranoid Android are not welcome in AskLemmy. Real humans only please.
Reminder: The terms of service apply here too.
Logo design credit goes to: tubbadu
You've already got a lot of replies. Hopefully somebody else hasn't said this: It's unethical because then you've created a societal incentive to create conditions that make the most exploitable of workers.
This would be America's wet dream
Or russias
Them too. Lots of places would kill to be allowed to make suicide-workers
Pretty sure Russia is likely already doing it to some extent to make up its dwindling army
Press ganging, yeah. They did that at the beginning of "Special Ukraine Operation". It's hard to organize an invasion when nobody believes their elections work
Remember when even Wagner said "fuck this shit" and turned on them? How badly does a war have to be conceived to make guns for hire turn coat and march on Moscow?
lol yeah
Like, bro just pay them! They have no morals that's why they're in Wagner. Annexing countries for a dime. Not paying the mercs is crazy
Yeah, that war did not go as planned for lil’ Putin, so now he had to plug up his soldiers with all manner of people, and pawning off his financial crisis on his lackey the prime minister. In any case, I wouldn’t be surprised if he was subjecting suicidal people to the ‘army’
We keep suicidal people out of those situations because they increase death tolls.
This is such a great answer.
Sometimes I do dangerous things at work. I once, light-heartedly, mentioned I am afraid of heights to the person who would be operating then gantry to lower us 20 m underground. I meant it as a friendly "hey I'm human too" to the worker who seemed awkward about having to take the engineer down into the hole. That very nearly ended the work.
I had to explain that yes, I am not a fan of heights, but that just meant I wouldn't be looking over the edge of the gantry going down. I learned that this type of thing is taken extremely seriously. It is critical that everyone can trust that the others on the crew can keep their cool if something goes wrong. The only thing that made what I said forgivable in terms of letting the work proceed is that I was down there to do a condition assessment, and was not part of the rescue team or operating any equipment. I was tied off and could be retrieved with the lifeline. No one would have to put themselves at risk if I fainted, for example.
In addition to this, I think the concept is cruel. If one supports the ability of those who want to die to do so, they should be able to do it with dignity and not risking a painful death or surviving with debilitating injury.
I didn't read the whole thread so maybe you already answered this, but Ive always though of this question in a
"Well we definitely can't get you BACK from Mars..." type of way.
Almost like allow suicidal people a Viking like funeral, in a more scientific way.
But of course letting someone with suicidal impulses making dangerous choices for themselves and others is bad and dangerous all around.
No, I didn't address this scenario. It's not really relevant to why I think some of the situations presented are unethical, but I'm happy to chime in.
I don't think letting people volunteer for a task that will certainly result in their death is inherently unethical. I also don't think people who volunteer for long or one way space missions are volunteering to die. They are volunteering to die in space. They are accepting that their life may be shorter than on earth, and accepting that it's a one way trip.
Sure, if they volunteer to go up in a vessel that isn't coming back, and the vessel relies on a finite supply of life sustaining things with no plan to accept deliveries or seek out sources, then I can accept that is volunteering for a task that will be the cause of your death. That's a bit more concerning for me because of the time periods involved. A person could change their mind but have to live years and years knowing they cannot survive their choice.
In addition to this, I think the concept is cruel. If one supports the ability of those who want to die to do so, they should be able to do it with dignity and not risking a painful death or surviving with debilitating injury.
TL;DR to be honest, that last paragraph was all I was asking about. Thanks for sharing your view.
I don't think the people who are focusing on why it's a bad idea are ignoring the focus on ethics, tbh. It's unethical to do this because it puts others at risk too.
Exactly, its unnecessarily risks the people requiring rescue.
That’s what I thought. If they knew they were going into a life threatening situation, I guess it could be counterproductive as they might just seek to end themselves rather than do the task at hand (which might be to rescue people).
Unethical
Its been a while since I've seen it, but would it eventually do a Lethal Weapon?
No, it would also be rather stupid. I want the people that were sent to rescue me make it out alive, ideally with me. Just adding more corpses to a disaster is pointless.
I think suicidal people just don't care. They are suicidal for a reason. And society is the most frequent reason. Why would they want to help those who made their life insufferable?
Even just casual people who they never met? I suppose when you’re in that mindset perhaps it’s hard to think of others maybe. That said, it doesn’t answer wether it would be ethical/moral, only wether it would be effective
I'm not suicidal anymore but I still don't think or care about people I've never met. People suck and most of them don't care about me either, so I don't spend any time thinking about them.
Anyway, as for the morality. We send people who are not suicidal to do dangerous jobs already. I don't think its a question of morality. If you have a dangerous job and someone is willing to do it for the money you offer, that's fine.
But if you mean that should be be forcing people to do dangerous stuff, then obviously that is not moral and shouldn't be done.
If we're able to effectively target those people, we should give them what they need to survive (e.g. for depression) or what they need to die (e.g. MAID).
If you don't want to live, would you be good at rescuing those who do want?
If it's a one way situation like going into a nuclear reactor to stop it from exploding - absolutely yes. But if it requires that suicidal person comes back out like in a mine rescue - not so sure.
I see your point, but I wasn’t asking wether it would be effective, only wether the idea itself is ethical or moral
I say using ineffective rescue personnel as opposed to trained and effective personnel is immoral. You are further endangering the lives of those needing rescue.
Waste.
People about to die should all be helped by anonymous groups to, let's say, moderate, the views of the super rich and their lackeys. If you get my drift.
While actually being able to help people might give people a reason to live, they might just step inside the door of a burning building, sit down, and wait for smoke inhalation ot take them, in which case, all you're really offering then is a method. So I'd say a full analysis of your plan would actually include EFFECTIVENESS; that is to say, what is the likely result of this action has some bearing.
But, if you're just interested in ethics, the broadly accepted ethic is that people are not allowed to kill themselves OR put themselves in dangerous situation because they want to die. In fact, if your mental health care worker SUSPECTS you of planning to do that, they're supposed to notify the state and the state evaluates you and locks you up against your will. And if the mental health practitioner does not do that and you do unalive yourself, they could lose their license and be sued into the ground by remaining family.
Despite the fact that forced hospitals stays do nothing--and are arguably worse--than other approaches that respect the patient's autonomy; despite the fact that calling the police destroys any trust a client has with a therapist, who is maybe their only person; despite the fact that this pressure makes the population of therapists willing to see suicidal patients much smaller....
So, yeah, there's things to be said about it, but I think your scenario is easily unethical under the current regime.
the broadly accepted ethic is that people are not allowed to kill themselves OR put themselves in dangerous situation because they want to die
Which is bullshit.
I was born without my permission. Obviously. That's already bad enough.
I should at least be allowed to die from my own will. It's not like there is any physically possible way to regret death, just like there is no regret of not being born.
I sort of agree with you, but I come at it from a different angle.
I don't think people have an absolute right to kill themselves, but I think everyone is worse off where they have to monitor what they say to their therapists and have to worry about being imprisoned in an abusive unhelpful insitution. Seem like, in the aggregate, the world is a worse place for instituting the report-and-commit policy.
And, of course, the money that the hospital gets for jailing you wouldn't otherwise go to, say, housing.... it's a fucked up society from top to bottom.
Yes, but probably not for the reason you're thinking.
It would be unethical because people who don't care about living would not make effective rescuers, they're not trained to handle these situations effectively, and it would decrease the chances of successfully rescuing the person.
So, I look at this from the opposite point of view, would I want to hire social people for high danger situations? For most situations, the answer is no.
If I need something done right and I'm willing to risk a human life for it, why am I sending someone whose main goal is to die and be happy with that as the achieved goal? I have to spend time and money getting them fit for purpose just to lose that investment because they blew themselves up. Then, I potentially have to deal with a hazardous situation caused by their death, which may cause additional damage and loss of life.
Ehh I could see it for testing drugs or other new medical technologies
I'm kind of surprised in all the discussions I don't see where anybody mentioned recent history in Japan where it wasn't directly asked but a few cultural aspects led to exactly what you're talking about happening. Old people took up working in Fukushima nuclear reactor because they knew the radiation would likely harm them and they wanted to spare the young.
Like a modern day practical Ättenstupa.
Have you ever read about the K-19 sub disaster? I like to contrast the two examples:
When the sub began to experience a meltdown, the captain got suicidal thoughts:
“At one point, I thought of going down to my cabin, drawing my pistol and finishing all my problems at once,” he said.
But rather than go himself into the reactor, he got ‘volunteers’ to sacrifice their lives to go in and repair.
Also, if you read the entire comments section, you’ll see that others have in fact already mentioned that example.
No. Not ethical at all!
Life itself is one of the highest ethical values. Even the life of a suicidal person. It has the same value.
By bringing such a person in dangerous situations, it is very likely that this brings her closer to suicidal thoughts and/or opportunities.
Therefore, such situations must be avoided, for these people even more than for "normal", not suicidal people.
Thanks for sharing your view
Same as usual, only if that person wants to.
There's a large difference between painless euthanasia or instant suicide (e.g. shot in the head) and, say, burning to death or getting buried alive under rubble.
How would this even work? Recruit on the suicide prevention line? How would you train suicidal people? Just give them the rundown on the way to the earthquake or mine disaster? Do we think suicidal people are organized, motivated, fit, and competent?
Wholly irrelevant to the question of whether it’s ethical or not. The debate over whether it’s feasible is a separate debate entirely. I asked if it’s ethical/moral.
