It’s not that straightforward. Some people might ,while mentally capable, give general consent to being committed if suicidal, but later withdraw it , while incapable ,at least in a professionals judgement.
My argument is that we all have subjective preferences, and since none of these preferences are inherently superior, we therefore ought to allow each mentally competent individual to decide and act upon their own preferences
That’s not well defined in the case above.
perfect ought not to be the enemy of good
But you’re not calling for less involuntary commitment.
Some people might ,while mentally capable, give general consent to being committed if suicidal, but later withdraw it , while incapable ,at least in a professionals judgement.
If they consent to intervention while competent and withdraw when incompetent, it is quite straightforward that the desires they stated while competent should override their later desires while incompetent. There is precedent; DNRs and DNIs are both documents recording the desires of competent patients for when they are incapacitated or incompetent.
That’s not well defined in the case above.
I apologize if I was unclear; an individuals current preferences ought to be respected while they are mentally competent and not when they are mentally incompetent. If a competent individual states their preferences for how they are treated when they are incompetent, these ought to be respected as well.
But you’re not calling for less involuntary commitment.
The amount of involuntary commitment is irrelevant so as long as it is not forced upon mentally competent individuals.
It’s not that straightforward. Some people might ,while mentally capable, give general consent to being committed if suicidal, but later withdraw it , while incapable ,at least in a professionals judgement.
That’s not well defined in the case above.
But you’re not calling for less involuntary commitment.
Thank you for your reply!
If they consent to intervention while competent and withdraw when incompetent, it is quite straightforward that the desires they stated while competent should override their later desires while incompetent. There is precedent; DNRs and DNIs are both documents recording the desires of competent patients for when they are incapacitated or incompetent.
I apologize if I was unclear; an individuals current preferences ought to be respected while they are mentally competent and not when they are mentally incompetent. If a competent individual states their preferences for how they are treated when they are incompetent, these ought to be respected as well.
The amount of involuntary commitment is irrelevant so as long as it is not forced upon mentally competent individuals.