Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Life on the inside as a ‘locked-in’ patient

theguardian.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 52 posts

Re: Life on the inside as a ‘locked-in’ patient

#31

Post by nkrisc »

throwaway_pdp09 wrote: post #17
nkrisc wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If they live out in the woods on their own, sure. Otherwise I'm fine being part of a society that has some restrictions we impose on ourselves.

Are you from the US? If so do you agree with US gun culture which "2017, [...] the [the CDC's] National Center for Health Statistics reports that gun deaths reached their highest level since 1968, with 39,773 deaths by firearm" ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence_in_the_United_Sta... ) One person paralysed by a contaminant (not heroin itself) = bad, but tens of thousands of deaths otherwise = ok. I agree wit…

For what it's worth, restrictions on guns are one of those restrictions I'm OK with.

Why do you think I'm OK with the outrageous number of gun deaths we have? Besides this is about heroin.

Re: Life on the inside as a ‘locked-in’ patient

#32

Post by nkrisc »

throwaway_pdp09 wrote: post #29
morelisp wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It’s weird because people agree both are bad. There is no aberration.

Things are bad not in absolutes, which you are suggesting, but in degree. Contrary to your flat statement I do not agree that taking heroin is bad, it only becomes bad when it affects other people negatively.

And guns aren't bad unless you kill someone with one. And yet I'm still in favor of restrictions on both.

Re: Life on the inside as a ‘locked-in’ patient

#33

Post by Hnrobert42 »

pksebben wrote: post #21
dctoedt wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Please let adults evaluate the risks and make up their own minds. I imagine Ellen would have appreciated the same opportunity to decide how she would spend that part of her life. (Ellen is the now-estranged wife of the locked-in guy; she spent months helping to care for him.) Ditto the taxpayers of Massachusetts, who had to foot the bill for millions of dollars of medical care for the locked-in guy. Those dollars c…

That is not why we have those social norms and laws. The War On Drugs was a political move by the Nixon administration that got doubled down on by the Reagan administration and has simply lasted long enough to become baseline cultural context. The costs associated with American drug policy far outweigh the costs of treatment, and our cultural attitude of abstinence only has been demonstrated to increase drug abuse, n…

> Adults' choices affect more than just their own lives. That's why we have social norms, and laws.

I take this to mean A. GP supports laws that limit am individual’s actions if they benefit the individual at the (non-consensual) expense of others. And B. GP implies drug use is one of those activities.

With which part do you disagree?

A. Do you believe that laws designed to protect the group from the individual will inevitably fail?

B. Do you believe drug use is not one of those activities? Sub-question, do you believe this depends on the drug?

Re: Life on the inside as a ‘locked-in’ patient

#34

Post by throwaway_pdp09 »

nkrisc wrote: post #32
throwaway_pdp09 wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Things are bad not in absolutes, which you are suggesting, but in degree. Contrary to your flat statement I do not agree that taking heroin is bad, it only becomes bad when it affects other people negatively.

And guns aren't bad unless you kill someone with one. And yet I'm still in favor of restrictions on both.

And on the whole, I'd strongly tend to agree.

Re: Life on the inside as a ‘locked-in’ patient

#35

Post by BrandoElFollito »

This is one of the reasons I was looking for some kind of "dead-man switch" for my body: a device that would let go poison if it is not accessed for some time.

I of course realize how much this must be fool-proof but I would love to know that if I am in a coma, or with dementia, or severely crippled, this would end my life without any external intervention. This leaves zero tough choice to the family (I can imagine some kind of one-time code to extend by a month or so but not more - I do not want to take the risk)

There is no such a thing I could find and I slowly started to wonder how that could be built (for myself).

Re: Life on the inside as a ‘locked-in’ patient

#36

Post by xkcd-sucks »

BrandoElFollito wrote: post #35

This is one of the reasons I was looking for some kind of "dead-man switch" for my body: a device that would let go poison if it is not accessed for some time. I of course realize how much this must be fool-proof but I would love to know that if I am in a coma, or with dementia, or severely crippled, this would end my life without any external intervention. This leaves zero tough choice to the family (I can imagine s…

Maybe an implant of poison coated in a shell that degrades predictably with appropriate kinetics, and you just swap the implant every few months. Seems like quite the materials engineering challenge though - it would have to stay intact for a long time then degrade rapidly. In addition to a myriad of other technical challenges (protection from impact, a minimally unpleasant poison, secrecy, etc)

Re: Life on the inside as a ‘locked-in’ patient

#37

Post by mikem170 »

dctoedt wrote: post #26
yostrovs wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Other adults decided that they're going to take care of this guy. Whether the wife or the society of Massachusetts. That was their choice. That choice should not automatically impose limitations on 3rd parties that would like to make their own choices.

If we take that logic to the reductio ad absurdum, the other adults in your neighborhood could choose to band together, forcibly evict you from your house, and let one of their number live there — after all, that'd be their adult choice, right? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductio_ad_absurdum

> If we take that logic to the reductio ad absurdum, the other adults in your neighborhood could choose to band together, forcibly evict you from your house, and let one of their number live there — after all, that'd be their adult choice, right?

The inaction of those who don't want to be caregivers is not the same as an action taken to forcibly evict someone.

Making an equivalence of the two would mean that anyone who is capable of helping someone else and does not is in the wrong. If that were the case we would all be wrong for not donating all of our money to the poor.

Philosophers better than you and I have grappled with this, I don't think they'd support your reductio ad absurdum.

Re: Life on the inside as a ‘locked-in’ patient

#38

Post by dctoedt »

mikem170 wrote: post #37
dctoedt wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If we take that logic to the reductio ad absurdum, the other adults in your neighborhood could choose to band together, forcibly evict you from your house, and let one of their number live there — after all, that'd be their adult choice, right? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductio_ad_absurdum

> If we take that logic to the reductio ad absurdum, the other adults in your neighborhood could choose to band together, forcibly evict you from your house, and let one of their number live there — after all, that'd be their adult choice, right? The inaction of those who don't want to be caregivers is not the same as an action taken to forcibly evict someone. Making an equivalence of the two would mean that anyone w…

> The inaction of those who don't want to be caregivers is not the same as an action taken to forcibly evict someone.

Agreed, but the distinction might not be relevant.

> Making an equivalence of the two would mean that anyone who is capable of helping someone else and does not is in the wrong.

Depending on the jurisdiction, there are circumstances in which the law says exactly that. [0]

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duty_to_rescue

Re: Life on the inside as a ‘locked-in’ patient

#39

Post by adrianmsmith »

jtsiskin wrote: post #3
t-writescode wrote: post #2

This year just keeps giving me more and more reasons to _do_ things and stop waiting for things.

Yes but make sure one of those things isn’t heroin

Nevertheless, it wasn't the heroin that caused this particular incident (although no doubt heroin causes lots of problems of its own!).

From the article:

> An unknown toxin, probably something in the substance that had been added to the heroin to make it go further, was wreaking havoc in Jake’s brain

Re: Life on the inside as a ‘locked-in’ patient

#40

Post by throwaway_pdp09 »

Hnrobert42 wrote: post #33
pksebben wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That is not why we have those social norms and laws. The War On Drugs was a political move by the Nixon administration that got doubled down on by the Reagan administration and has simply lasted long enough to become baseline cultural context. The costs associated with American drug policy far outweigh the costs of treatment, and our cultural attitude of abstinence only has been demonstrated to increase drug abuse, n…

> Adults' choices affect more than just their own lives. That's why we have social norms, and laws. I take this to mean A. GP supports laws that limit am individual’s actions if they benefit the individual at the (non-consensual) expense of others. And B. GP implies drug use is one of those activities. With which part do you disagree? A. Do you believe that laws designed to protect the group from the individual will…

Edit: are you replying to the right post, because if not that would explain me getting in a tizz.

I'm afraid I'm tired and having trouble understanding your post but am curious. Please correct me where I go wrong as I try to make sense of it.

> A. Do you believe that laws designed to protect the group from the individual will inevitably fail?

Doesn't it depend on the law? Bad laws will probably fail and certainly should fail. Bad laws do exist, as @pksebben was illustrating. Should this law was revoked recently https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/iceland-revo... but should it not have been?

I suspect I'm getting you wrong, so please put me right.

Post reply on HN