What is the legal reasoning that allows doctors to “save” people who have attempted suicide?

[Jessica5]

The right to refuse medical care is extremely well established.

Seriously, what gives medics the legal right to "save" people against their will? If somebody's shot themselves in the face and is dying, why shouldn't they have the legal right to bleed out and die over the next 15 minutes? Even if you don't think the doctors should shoot the person a second time to put them out of their misery ASAP, what gives doctors the right to force the person to go through 60 years of misery rather than just 15 minutes?

 

[Darkhaven]

Because most western countries law systems were built around the principle of "human dignity" which means that a human life os the most valuable thing for the law to protect.
A typical Catholic Church doctrine manifestation in our law systems, especially in European countries.
What they don't realise is that it's much more grievous for the "human dignity" to force someone to stay alive when they clearly don't want to, then letting them die as they wish.

 

[crimea_river]

I'm no expert on international rights regarding rights to refuse treatment. But, in the UK there is allowance for an advance decision, however, whether that's actually adhered to, or not is another matter. As in, it's not like a paramedic is going to be able to access the directive in what they'll see as a life saving situation.

Advance decision (living will)

An advance decision to refuse treatment lets your healthcare team know your wishes if you are not able to communicate them.

www.nhs.uk

 

[TAW122]

Because most western countries law systems were built around the principle of "human dignity" which means that a human life os the most valuable thing for the law to protect.
A typical Catholic Church doctrine manifestation in our law systems, especially in European countries.
What they don't realise is that it's much more grievous for the "human dignity" to force someone to stay alive when they clearly don't want to, then letting them die as they wish.

Well said, and it sucks because separation of church and state is supposed to make sure that religion doesn't get into politics and affect public policy. However, that is simply just not the case.

 

[inconsequential]

I'm no expert on international rights regarding rights to refuse treatment. But, in the UK there is allowance for an advance decision, however, whether that's actually adhered to, or not is another matter. As in, it's not like a paramedic is going to be able to access the directive in what they'll see as a life saving situation.

Advance decision (living will)

An advance decision to refuse treatment lets your healthcare team know your wishes if you are not able to communicate them.

www.nhs.uk

In the US, advance directives don't mean much if you have a next-of-kin who is opposed to them. You can have a CCA-DNR, be unconscious, and have a family member say, "I want EVERYTHING DONE".

They'll proceed to airlift you while your heart stops twice, after it stopped at the first hospital, and then die at the second hospital with 5 broken ribs and blown out veins.

 

[Severen]

Fear of being sued, fired and seen as a "cold heartless person" partially responsible for the death of someone as well.

 

[Misanthrope]

There are multiple issues here. One is the default assumption that suicide is irrational. This is likely born out of the fact that there is little meaningful study on rational suicide that even makes it to legislative places in the first place. Even less so when it comes to mental disorders, unlike say terminal illness or enduring physical issues. So the legislation often reflects the already outdated and dominant views they spring from. Doesn't help when the Daily mail paper prints yet another story on 'Dangerous suicidal schizophrenic murders stranger and eats mothers face...'

If you are being treated for mental health, this is further entrenched by the mental health act as you likely already come under being viewed as a vulnerable adult. Or your mental capacity may be in question. But the system is a hammer looking for nails and everyone is a nail currently for the reasons I outlined above. That and psychiatry seems so very flawed and reductionist in its approach to the point I could rant for days at its glaring structural failings. So in the interests of preserving life, it makes collateral out of some lives who do have rational reasoning. A lot of law is a variant of one for the many, in its attempt at mitigating harm. It is immensely complex and I often see that complexity narrowed in scope or reduced to a caricature on here. It gets even more complex when you throw in comorbid conditions. Drugs, abuse, gas lighting, and external conditions. Even various medications can throw up issues. Doctors are also covered by medical ethics so can override what a patient may want. That is another complexity I am not at all knowledgeable about.

As for, first responders do not have the luxury of carrying out a forensic level assessment of your suicide attempt then coming to a judgement, nor are they mind readers of your mental inner workings or your philosophy on suicide. They have various legal protections to act in the interest of preserving life and will simply do so. In the example of the shotgun. Did they do it to themselves? Is this youtube stunt gone wrong? Did someone else shoot them? Is there a note and should they waste time reading it? Their role is not to be a detective respecting your autonomy or rummaging around in drawers first to see if you have any sort of advanced instructions. At that moment they cannot know, every second is crucial and medicine is about preserving life It is not about your personal circumstances it is about the broader whole and their job role. Sometimes that broader whole can condemn you to a worse fate. But the person working on you can't know that. But they can be certain if they do nothing you die. On the other side of that is the potential of getting sued. So appeals to further entrench liability culture so people don't interfere with suicide seems pretty short-sighted.

You see a woman in a canal she is drowning. Do you move to rescue them or do you let them drown? I have purposely left out context because that is what it is often like for front line services or a random Joe spotting someone in seeming distress.

You see a person hanging from a tree. Flailing about and gasping and trying to pull on the rope. Are they flailing because of survival instinct or because they have changed their mind? Are those noises an appeal for help or a crushed windpipe and natural pained responses? Since you can't know and now all the responsibility to act or not act rests on you. Most will move to preserve life in that instance. I think that is simply human and nothing to do with evil pro lifers or even religion.

I do feel formal directives that have been pre-established should be respected. That it would be more humane to have an end of life service with built-in safeguards that also considers the chronic pain of mental disorders especially if treatments have consistently failed and quality of life is compromised. That can establish a setting where you at least get the ability to say goodbye without a heavy handed interventionist response. But you go full circle then to the first issue raised, what is considered sound mind when it comes to suicide? Seems some states and countries are making inroads there with legislation. My country though is not among them. In fact recently just watched the mental health act worsen considerably...

 

[Roger]

There are multiple issues here. One is the default assumption that suicide is irrational. This is likely born out of the fact that there is little meaningful study on rational suicide that even makes it to legislative places in the first place. Even less so when it comes to mental disorders, unlike say terminal illness or enduring physical issues. So the legislation often reflects the already outdated and dominant views they spring from. Doesn't help when the Daily mail paper prints yet another story on 'Dangerous suicidal schizophrenic murders stranger and eats mothers face...'

If you are being treated for mental health, this is further entrenched by the mental health act as you likely already come under being viewed as a vulnerable adult. Or your mental capacity may be in question. But the system is a hammer looking for nails and everyone is a nail currently for the reasons I outlined above. That and psychiatry seems so very flawed and reductionist in its approach to the point I could rant for days at its glaring structural failings. So in the interests of preserving life, it makes collateral out of some lives who do have rational reasoning. A lot of law is a variant of one for the many, in its attempt at mitigating harm. It is immensely complex and I often see that complexity narrowed in scope or reduced to a caricature on here. It gets even more complex when you throw in comorbid conditions. Drugs, abuse, gas lighting, and external conditions. Even various medications can throw up issues.

Also, first responders do not have the luxury of carrying out a forensic level assessment of your suicide attempt then coming to a judgement, nor are they mind readers of your mental inner workings or your philosophy on suicide. They have various legal protections to act in the interest of preserving life and will simply do so. In the example of the shotgun. Did they do it to themselves? Is this youtube stunt gone wrong? Did someone else shoot them? Is there a note and should they waste time reading it? Their role is not to be a detective respecting your autonomy or rummaging around in drawers first to see if you have any sort of advanced instructions. At that moment they cannot know, every second is crucial and medicine is about preserving life It is not about your personal circumstances it is about the broader whole and their job role. Sometimes that broader whole can condemn you to a worse fate. But the person working on you can't know that. But they can be certain if they do nothing you die. On the other side of that is the potential of getting sued. So appeals to further entrench liability culture so people don't interfere with suicide seems pretty short-sighted.

You see a woman in a canal she is drowning. Do you move to rescue them or do you let them drown? I have purposely left out context because that is what it is often like for front line services or a random Joe spotting someone in seeming distress.

You see a person hanging from a tree. Flailing about and gasping and trying to pull on the rope. Are they flailing because of survival instinct or because they have changed their mind? Are those noises an appeal for help or a crushed windpipe and natural pained responses? Since you can't know and now all the responsibility to act or not act rests on you. Most will move to preserve life in that instance. I think that is simply human and nothing to do with evil pro lifers or even religion.

I do feel formal directives that have been pre-established should be respected. That it would be more humane to have an end of life service with built-in safeguards that also considers the chronic pain of mental disorders especially if treatments have consistently failed and quality of life is compromised. That can establish a setting where you at least get the ability to say goodbye without a heavy handed interventionist response. But you go full circle then to the first issue raised, what is considered sound mind when it comes to suicide? Seems some states and countries are making inroads there with legislation. My country though is not among them. In fact recently just watched the mental health act worsen considerably...

Your country being . . . . ?

 

[Misanthrope]

U.K. Or Airstrip one as I call it...

 

[deflagrat]

In Spain DNR documents are worthless if it's a suicide attempt, it's just the way it is.

 

[riverstyx]

Maybe because a suicide attempt is viewed as a sign of mental illness and as such a person should be saved so they can receive therapy.

For some people a suicide attempt is completely rational but there no way a doctor can differentiate between that and those people who have a legitimate mental illness.

 

[GeorgeJL]

The right to refuse medical care is extremely well established.

Seriously, what gives medics the legal right to "save" people against their will? If somebody's shot themselves in the face and is dying, why shouldn't they have the legal right to bleed out and die over the next 15 minutes? Even if you don't think the doctors should shoot the person a second time to put them out of their misery ASAP, what gives doctors the right to force the person to go through 60 years of misery rather than just 15 minutes?

Because by default they must save them because if the doctors don't save them then the family can sue the doctors.

 

[Person]

Because Doctors cannot 'play God'
They have to attempt to save you, just like they have to attempt to save pedophiles and murderers. I believe its part of their hypocratic oath.

 

[SinisterKid]

There are codes of ethics in most countries that bind medical staff to certain practices, ie, saving lives. Breaking these "codes" can leave medical practitioners open to prosecution and removal of the rights to practice medicine. It all stems from the Hippocratic Oath which is a ancient Greek text said to be from the time of Hippocrates who was allegedly the father of modern medicine.

Anyway, suffice to say that most medics vow to save life and preserve the sanctity of life at all costs. The rest is all secondary to that.

 

[NextSummer]

The hippocratic oath is a myth. It's never sworn upon because it also forbids working with women. There are also other funny orders of the hippocratic oath. Nobody takes it seriously. The new, modern version they swear upon is the "declaration of Geneva" and in that, it doesn't say it's forbidden to assist a suicide or even kill. Doctors swear that they follow the will of the patient. So it's actually pretty pro-choice if we just look at the oath. I also learned this recently.

 

[Jessica5]

The Hippocratic Oath says to do no harm. Saving these people is a violation of the Hippocratic Oath.