I have to write this post differently once I’ve read the article that triggers these thoughts.
First do no harm. I absolutely love this ethical principle.
As with every higher ethic it’s so hard to adhere to in practice, in the real world. But it’s what is to be reached for and there’s always practically and – for want of a better word – the concerns of rationality that get in the way of achieving the purity of an ethic so clearly stated as “first do no harm”.
Obviously real doctors use so many treatments that inflict harm. They balance these risks with the rewards rather than (I believe) they believe in the ethics of the double effect by which a secondary (bad) consequence is irrelevant and only the good in the primary consequence is the important thing. I say consequence but it is equally about the objective.
Chemotherapy for example breaks the ethic of do no harm. It is a use of poisonous drugs to treat cancer but it destroys healthy cells too. I don’t think practicing doctors justify this by the double effect to adhere to the ethic of first do no harm. They don’t believe it’s because their primary objective is destroying the cancer so the secondary effects and consequences of chemotherapy are irrelevant to them. Rather I believe they simply weigh the risks versus the rewards.
It’s still important for doctors to reach for the ethic of first do no harm but it’s superseded by other practical and rational objectives and rather than base their decisions on the guiding ethic of the medical profession they simply weigh the risks versus the rewards.
But f-ing doctors think they’re too good to perform assisted suicide.
Irrespective of their deviancy and misadventures in the medical specialty of psychiatry it is not the only role of doctors to extent life and prevent death. You never want to face a medical profession who only cares about extending and prolonging your life and preventing your death so every harm they inflict on you is irrelevant to them because all they care about is prolonging your life and preventing your death.
You want to face a medical profession who ignore your suffering your quality of life your free will and your consent?
More than this though who wants to be a doctor who doesn’t care about the quality of life of their patients the suffering of their patients the free will of their patients and the consent of their patients. As I’m writing this my Android word suggestions dictionary is suggesting “victims” when I’m typing “patients” and that’s the point about harms and the ethic of first do no harm because a doctor who doesn’t care about your suffering your quality of life your free will and your consent is going to have so many victims.
Think about yourself for a moment. Do you want whatever and cruelty monsters want to do to you to be the result of the ethics of those who purport to care about you? Do you want to face those who care but only about the length of your life and preventing your death? Do you want to be cared about by those who don’t care about your suffering or quality of life or your free will or your consent?
Just what sort of harms are created by such a pure sense of care (and cruelty) I’ve briefly summarised in the paragraph above?
I’m sort of leading to a point about harm in the ethic of first do no harm that clearly has a component defined by how patients/victims feel.
But I’ve digressed from the point as I do often do.
Doctors have to factor in your suffering. They have to factor in your quality of life.. They have to factor in your consent and free will.
Yet it seems to be the ethics of the medical profession that they’re too good to perform assisted suicide yet it is clearly harm they’re doing.
Yes assisted suicide obviously ends life but it’s not the be all and end all of medical ethics or the ethic of first do no harm applied so all a doctor should care about is you not dying. No good can come from the interpretation of first do no harm as to prevent death or a medical profession who cares only about the length of your life not about your suffering or quality of life or free will or consent.
Think of the obvious harms achieved by oppressing free will as one example. Think of the obvious harms achieved by ignoring the quality of life of a patient. And, of course, to ignore suffering is only going to lead to even more harms.
But the priorities of the medical profession are to a limited degree already about factoring in suffering and quality of life and free will and consent except in their misadventures and clear evil in the medical specialty of psychiatry.
(It’s in psychiatry that it’s obvious the ethic of first do no harm has been utterly failed. So little psychiatrists care that they use the method of imprisonment. A deliberate attempt to ruin quality of life and that’s what imprisonment is when it’s used as punishment.)
It’s about the objectives and consequences which defines what harm means to a doctor in relation to the medical ethic of first do no harm. Seriously what doctors want to seek care from a doctor who doesn’t care at all about quality of life suffering free will and consent only about length of life and preventing death? Doctors should be able to recognise the harms in such sense of cruelty as to ignore quality of life and suffering and free will and consent and these are factors in what doctors have to factor in when making a risk versus reward decision as well as the medical ethic of first do no harm.
The problem is they think they’re too good to perform assisted suicide…but they’re doing exactly what are the harms of ignoring quality of life and suffering and free will and consent leading to depriving themselves of the opportunity to care about a suicidal individual. (Because assisted suicide is fundamental to care.)
Two sets of things that are important. One set justifies doctors can’t be involved with performing assisted suicide. The other determines why they want to help suicidal individuals die a good death.
Set 1: caring about extending life and preventing death
Set 2: caring about suffering and quality of life and free will and consent
The current implementation of the ethics of the medical profession lead to the freedom to make a suicidal individual want to die and the freedom to inflict, prolong and worsen suicidality indefinitely. Apparently there’s no harm doctors in this generation of monsters can see with these horrific truths about what the medical profession has always protected not protected suicidal individuals.
By ignoring the severity of the suffering of suicidal individuals and the awfulness of feeling suicidal. Don’t get me wrong. That’s why they don’t have a concept of the harm to suicidal individuals. Because they are unaffected by how suicidal individuals in their choices about methods and objectives and their definitions of acceptable consequences. This isn’t the problem with the medical profession in this civilisation of monsters alone but it’s what is the basis of the harms achieved by all.
So much harm is achieved by ignoring suffering and quality of life and free will and consent.
That’s the point.
Now let me digress…
And that’s the thing about the ethic of first do no harm that apparently guides the medical profession to think they’re too good to provide a good death. The truth about the ethic is “do whatever the f”#k you want by the standards of this generation of the monsters who call themselves the human race”.
Never before has the most basic truth prevailed before and this defines the lack of mercy and protections
If I experience the same suicidal thoughts and feelings and unbearable suffering and unbearable quality of life then I’d want the same thing for me as what a suicidal individual wants for themselves
It’s a phenomenally basic truth…but instead of this truth the lie of mental illness has prevailed for centuries.
Again it’s another basic truth that being suicidal is the worst state of conscious existence and the worst state of mental suffering. Again it’s a truth not recognised yet and instead the lie of mental illness and everything built upon this lie continues to prevail.
So look at what happens. Let me reiterate the two sets of objectives and consequences.
Set 1: caring about extending life and preventing death
Set 2: caring about suffering and quality of life and free will and consent
Doctors are so good they can’t perform assisted suicide? Throughout the history of care for suicidal individuals in this civilisation of monsters the second set of objectives and consequences fall so low on the agenda of what’s important to doctors if at all.
Just how many times is the harm achieved by doctors who don’t even consider “is this going to make my patient suicidal” but even when they do they bear the consequences so easily when they ask themselves “is what I’m doing going to inflict, prolong and worsen suicidality”.
First do no harm when cause and effect is a mental illness? The consequence of the fallacy of the lie at the foundation of psychiatry you do not be victim to like I am.
What is important to a suicidal individual it has never been important to the medical profession or the rest of the monsters who call themselves the human race.
Let me focus on one aspect and that’s the consideration of the harms done to a suicidal individual.
Harm has many variables and definitions and I’ve only mentioned a few. I haven’t mentioned inequality for example but I can trust the medical profession to serve equality like they serve the protection of suicidal individuals. But when it comes to caring about suffering and quality of life and free will and consent the medical ethics achieve the opposite of first do no harm.
Think of the harms achieved when you face a doctor who doesn’t care about your suffering your quality of life your free will and your consent. (Do doctors themselves want to face this?)
It really is “we’re too cruel and evil inside to care about suicidal individuals”. It really is “we can do whatever we want to a suicidal individual to achieve our objectives and it doesn’t matter how cruel or evil our methods are” that’s the sense of medical ethics that believes there’s no harm that can be done to a suicidal individual. This “there’s no harm that can be done to a suicidal individual” defines such an ethical position that the ethic of first do no harm is why doctors can’t be involved in performing assisted suicide.
Do you get it the truth about what prevails? No harm that can be done to a suicidal individual so the medical ethic of first do no harm it only prevents the medical profession from depriving suicidal individuals of a good death but suffering and quality of life and free will and consent are there to be ignored.
Then there’s the potential for so many harms achieved by denying access to assisted suicide. In fact there are extreme harms that can only be achieved by denying the hope of the mercy and protection of access to assisted suicide – extreme harms only possible by ignoring the limit to what can be suffered and endured.
What’s the real and humane care that doesn’t exist yet? What good can’t the medical profession do?
To serve the mercy for suicidal individuals and the protection of suicidal individuals. To respect that there are things worse than death that are inherently and obviously worse than death. To recognise the limit to what a conscious being can endure is what’s been transgressed and that’s what is expressed by suicidal thoughts and feelings and to care is to guard it not ignore it.
You recognise what is harm and to prevented by the ethic of first do no harm?
The ethic of first do no harm still stands when doctors want to give suicidal individuals a good death. The risks and the rewards consideration is there too but measured by the weight of becoming suicidal and staying suicidal like it is beared by a suicidal individual…not beared lightly like the monsters who call themselves the human race always do.
It’s why access to assisted suicide is not because of the failures of care. Assisted suicide is fundamental to care. When you weigh the harms as a suicidal individual does.
It’s weighing it like a suicidal individual does. Then you will recognise the harms and you will recognise the objectives of care.
If assisted suicide is a failure of care then it’s the failures to have mercy for and to protect suicidal individuals. But it’s the reason why assisted suicide is an act of care. It’s mercy for suicidal individuals and it’s a protection without equal.
The failures to care are the failures to care about the suffering and quality of life and free will and consent of suicidal individuals. But to care about these things is to care by giving a suicidal individual a good death.
a thing that defines the competency to care 