Thank you for your comment! You raise some good points, particularly regarding competence.
people who might want intervention
By definition, if you want to be committed, you have not been involuntarily committed. Involuntary prevention is what I take issue with; I apologize if I have been unclear. If an individual indicates that they would like others to prevent them from committing suicide or they would like to seek assistance for suicidal ideation, they ought to receive the help they require.
it’s your own belief …you haven’t shown it is a principle that transcends merely subjective preferences
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. I will attempt to demonstrate that it is a principle when my karma recovers or I am able to make another post. (Whichever comes first.)
Is there a completely reliable way of determining that?
Given that nobody here is omniscient, there is no perfect way to determine anything; however, perfect ought not to be the enemy of good. Any adult is mentally competent by default, and may only be considered mentally incompetent if they are currently impaired (severe dementia, psychosis, severe hallucinations, etc). In general, it is safe to assume that those who do not have and do not have a history of mental impairment are mentally competent, and those who have or have a history of mental impairment are not mentally competent.
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.
Thank you for your comment! You raise some good points, particularly regarding competence.
By definition, if you want to be committed, you have not been involuntarily committed. Involuntary prevention is what I take issue with; I apologize if I have been unclear. If an individual indicates that they would like others to prevent them from committing suicide or they would like to seek assistance for suicidal ideation, they ought to receive the help they require.
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. I will attempt to demonstrate that it is a principle when my karma recovers or I am able to make another post. (Whichever comes first.)
Given that nobody here is omniscient, there is no perfect way to determine anything; however, perfect ought not to be the enemy of good. Any adult is mentally competent by default, and may only be considered mentally incompetent if they are currently impaired (severe dementia, psychosis, severe hallucinations, etc). In general, it is safe to assume that those who do not have and do not have a history of mental impairment are mentally competent, and those who have or have a history of mental impairment are not mentally competent.
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.