Is Self-Mutilation a Human Right?

[MarxSchmarx]

When/should other individuals intervene when someone is cutting themselves or threatens to chop off their arm or something? When/should the community, AS THE COMMUNITY, in our Red Utopia intervene? Should we let people who cut themselves be, even if we know they need psychological help? Should we ever strap them to a gurney to prevent them from physically damaging themselves?

[Genosse Kotze]

There's really no need to post this 3 times here, the other two will most likely be thrown in the trash. But to answer your question, I say people shouldn't intervene upon the discovery of a "cutter." I started a thread here not long ago, which got totally hijacked, about what people's views on suicide were, which I think is in the same vein as what you're asking here.

On the subject of cutting, Slavoj Zhizhek has some interesting insights. He says that in an existance where life is becoming more and more digitized, the only things which strike us as real are pain and whitnessing extreme violence. He attributes the reactions of some Americans to 9/11 as them finally expirencing something real for the first time in a long while. And cutting is a way some people try and expirencing some sort of real sensation.

For the same reasons why I oppose suicide intervention, I oppose people getting in the way of somebody cutting themselves. I'm not saying it's not sad when somebody kills themselves, but just because you can't wrap your head around the reason's for it dosen't mean that you have a right to go and coerce them into living, and the same holds true for cutters. Especially since mental hospitals really are abhorrant places! For people who want to kill or otherwise hurt themselves you're going to give them ECT and give them brain damage?? When we learned it was a bad idea to stick your finger in the electrical socket when we were two, why would it be a good idea to stick your head in one because you're depressed?

As a matter of fact, I find so called "mental illnesses" to be a very interesting subject in and of itself, especially things related to depression, suicide and the like. But I'll save my thoughts on that for another time.

[Dimentio]

What about the BME subculture? Guys who are nailing their balls to a table, chewing of their penises, removing the scrotum, etc...

[apathy maybe]

Originally posted by [email protected] 01, 2007 06:24 am
When/should other individuals intervene when someone is cutting themselves or threatens to chop off their arm or something? When/should the community, AS THE COMMUNITY, in our Red Utopia intervene? Should we let people who cut themselves be, even if we know they need psychological help? Should we ever strap them to a gurney to prevent them from physically damaging themselves?
My body. Fuck society.

If I want to kill myself, you shouldn't even try and stop me. (In fact, if you are a serious communist, you should hand me the method to do so.)

Anyone who wants to restrict what an individual does with their own body is not and cannot be a true leftist. All true leftists hold that an individuals body is theirs to do with as they wish.

That includes mutilation, suicide, drug use, abortion, and so on.

[A-S M.]

Originally posted by apathy maybe+August 02, 2007 09:59 am--> (apathy maybe @ August 02, 2007 09:59 am)
[email protected] 01, 2007 06:24 am
When/should other individuals intervene when someone is cutting themselves or threatens to chop off their arm or something? When/should the community, AS THE COMMUNITY, in our Red Utopia intervene? Should we let people who cut themselves be, even if we know they need psychological help? Should we ever strap them to a gurney to prevent them from physically damaging themselves?
My body. Fuck society.

If I want to kill myself, you shouldn't even try and stop me. (In fact, if you are a serious communist, you should hand me the method to do so.)

Anyone who wants to restrict what an individual does with their own body is not and cannot be a true leftist. All true leftists hold that an individuals body is theirs to do with as they wish.

That includes mutilation, suicide, drug use, abortion, and so on. [/b]
yea but what if someone is in a situation when he/she can not think straight and does something that isn't what they really want but because of their state of mind, situation they're in, etc... they still do it? how does the community know if it's what they really want or not, it's not that simple as you put it

[apathy maybe]

How does the community know if the person is in their "right state of mind"? The community doesn't.

The only thing the community can do is to not interfere with what a person wants to do with their own body. Simply as that.

[Dr Mindbender]

I think this thread sortof misses the point. Depression, boredom, alienation and other factors which lead to self harm/suicide are all symptoms of the 'profit first' culture we live in now.
To me communism/socialism is supposed to remove these.

[Marko]

Originally posted by apathy [email protected] 02, 2007 11:59 am
If I want to kill myself, you shouldn't even try and stop me. (In fact, if you are a serious communist, you should hand me the method to do so.)
Why?

[Le People]

Originally posted by apathy [email protected] 02, 2007 05:59 am

My body. Fuck society.

If I want to kill myself, you shouldn't even try and stop me. (In fact, if you are a serious communist, you should hand me the method to do so.)

Anyone who wants to restrict what an individual does with their own body is not and cannot be a true leftist. All true leftists hold that an individuals body is theirs to do with as they wish.

That includes mutilation, suicide, drug use, abortion, and so on.
Yeah, its your body. But shouldn't you be aware how your free actions affect others. Let's take someone who cuts themselves. Their cutting can cause aungish for their friends and family and also if they screw up at it, can lead to them being a non producing entity of society, hence limiting others freedom. In a communist society, one would become aware of how their freedom affects others, most notabley in by limiting or enhancing production of goods. If one chooses to cut, let them, but they must also be aware of the implications on the rest of society their actions have.

[Dr Mindbender]

id like to think that under socialism/communism the factors which cause one to harm themselves would be gone anyway.

[apathy maybe]

Originally posted by Le People+August 02, 2007 03:24 pm--> (Le People @ August 02, 2007 03:24 pm)
apathy [email protected] 02, 2007 05:59 am

My body. Fuck society.

If I want to kill myself, you shouldn't even try and stop me. (In fact, if you are a serious communist, you should hand me the method to do so.)

Anyone who wants to restrict what an individual does with their own body is not and cannot be a true leftist. All true leftists hold that an individuals body is theirs to do with as they wish.

That includes mutilation, suicide, drug use, abortion, and so on.
Yeah, its your body. But shouldn't you be aware how your free actions affect others. Let's take someone who cuts themselves. Their cutting can cause aungish for their friends and family and also if they screw up at it, can lead to them being a non producing entity of society, hence limiting others freedom. In a communist society, one would become aware of how their freedom affects others, most notabley in by limiting or enhancing production of goods. If one chooses to cut, let them, but they must also be aware of the implications on the rest of society their actions have. [/b]
I'm not sure if you get my point. Fuck society, friends and family. Their opinion, anguish or whatever else are irrelevant.

Of course any action a person takes is going to affect the universe. But just like society can't tell a person to always wear black (or gray or whatever...), they can't tell them not to hurt themselves.

Your argument, if taken to the logical extreme, would lead to a society where the individual doesn't actually matter. Where the community is the sole important thing. Where a women must not have an abortion, because the removal of a potential worker hurts society (and thus impacts on the freedom of others...).

Unless the method of self mutilation causes direct pain to another (for example, crashing a car...), then the other does not count in this case.


Of course, my vehement support for the autonomy of the individual should not be read as saying that the opinions of others don't actually matter. It is just up to the individual to decided what they want to do, not anyone else.

[Marko]

Originally posted by Ulster [email protected] 02, 2007 03:27 pm
id like to think that under socialism/communism the factors which cause one to harm themselves would be gone anyway.
I agree 100%. Socialism is intended to reduce human suffering, not to give freedom to it.

[Le People]

Originally posted by apathy [email protected] 02, 2007 09:46 am

I'm not sure if you get my point. Fuck society, friends and family. Their opinion, anguish or whatever else are irrelevant.

Of course any action a person takes is going to affect the universe. But just like society can't tell a person to always wear black (or gray or whatever...), they can't tell them not to hurt themselves.

Your argument, if taken to the logical extreme, would lead to a society where the individual doesn't actually matter. Where the community is the sole important thing. Where a women must not have an abortion, because the removal of a potential worker hurts society (and thus impacts on the freedom of others...).

Unless the method of self mutilation causes direct pain to another (for example, crashing a car...), then the other does not count in this case.


Of course, my vehement support for the autonomy of the individual should not be read as saying that the opinions of others don't actually matter. It is just up to the individual to decided what they want to do, not anyone else.
I never said stop them nor did I say that the individual didn't matter. Perhaps to more clearly put it, the individual must realize how their freedom affects others, but still act how ever they damn well please. Of course there's nothing to stop them, but my point is to educate, so they can have the proper insight in their descion making. After all, many people are so infantilized that they may be an adult and act as an adult, but the awareness of their liberty is almost nil. (and the responsiblity that accopanies it). In a communist society, I believe everyone would know their freedom and resposiblity, so they can do whatever the hell they want.

[apathy maybe]

Ah, no worries then.

[Hegemonicretribution]

Originally posted by Marko+August 02, 2007 02:28 pm--> (Marko @ August 02, 2007 02:28 pm)
Ulster [email protected] 02, 2007 03:27 pm
id like to think that under socialism/communism the factors which cause one to harm themselves would be gone anyway.
I agree 100%. Socialism is intended to reduce human suffering, not to give freedom to it. [/b]
It would be nice to hope for this, but I am not holding my breath. Self destruction is not just resultant from a disenchanment with surroundings, and without a few people abusing themselves, what real case is there for others not doing it?

In the case of self harm, the current thinking (at least last time I was involved dealing with this sort of thing...a couple of years ago) is that prevention of self harm will lead to the next form of escape...suicide. If someone is self harming, make sure they have clean utensils, that is all I can suggest. Chances are, if they aren't attention seeking, you probably will not know about it until much later.

We shouldn't just abandon people, but self harm is fuck all really, and taking this away causes more problems. Essentially we can be deemed machines of accumulated experience (well maybe...we experience things anyway), why not give it a go at some point? Pain is sexy, I know if I had a machine that could generate pain I would want to see how muchIcould take and push it beyond. Why? Well I don't want to die without having experienced both positive and negative extremes.

In reality people self harm for a whole host of different reasons. Wecan remove some of these....but not all.

The individual can not be denied of their autonomyat anypoint.

[Niemand]

Originally posted by Hegemonicretribution+--> (Hegemonicretribution)
In the case of self harm, the current thinking (at least last time I was involved dealing with this sort of thing...a couple of years ago) is that prevention of self harm will lead to the next form of escape...suicide. If someone is self harming, make sure they have clean utensils, that is all I can suggest. Chances are, if they aren't attention seeking, you probably will not know about it until much later.[/b]
Actually, self-mutilation will not give way to suicide. I used to be a self-mutilator myself, who then attempted suicide twice and I can assure you it was not because my self-mutilating tendencies grew into wanting to eradicate myself completely or because I was cut off from my methods of self-mutilating. In fact, when deprived of my preferred method of self-mutilation I'd make something out of my surroundings to do it with.


Hegemonicretribution

In reality people self harm for a whole host of different reasons. Wecan remove some of these....but not all.
Actually, I think we can remove a vast majority of the reasons why people self-mutilate. With the eradication of capitalism we will eliminate the selfish childishness which dominate the psyche of the average person. People will become more sensitive and a majority of the hard personalities which exist today will give way to a rise in soft personalities as we enter a new age of peace, prosperity, and enlightenment.

[BurnTheOliveTree]

Grudgingly, I have to say that if you really want to hack up your arm to improve your situation, I don't and shouldn't have the power to force you not to. Doesn't mean I can't try and persuade you out of it though.

Suicide is a different matter. Sorry AM, if you put a gun to your head, I'd do everything in my power to stop you, you're too lovely. I'll happily rob you of your autonomy for a moment if it saves your life - suicide is just never a rational move, ever, and the emotional fall out of such an action is just so awful. Frankly, forcing you to live is a lesser evil. I guess I'd try and compensate by doing my best to help X person's life to the extent that they are content to remain alive.

-Alex

[apathy maybe]

BTOT: Thanks for the sentiment, but no thanks. If you try and stop me killing my self (and seriously, in my case that would be a last resort and a serious wanting to actually kill my self), then you are likely to get hurt too. And I don't want that.

Basically, the right to life is predicated on the right to die. You can't talk about the right to life if you are going to refuse a person the right to kill themselves as well.

I have no problem with you attempting to try and talk a person out of killing themselves, but as soon as you physically intervene ... Well that is potentially problematic in so many ways. I would have to say that you shouldn't do "anything" in your "power".

[RevMARKSman]

Scenario 1: Person X has witnessed a tragic car accident in which his mother died. He is convinced that it's his fault somehow because he didn't intervene (by doing what, running between the cars? It isn't his fault, but he thinks so anyway). He refuses food, locks himself in his own basement and announces that he's going to cut himself every day, gradually increasing the depth/length of cuts until he eventually dies of blood loss.

Apathy maybe, would you oppose the following measures, listed in order of severity:

a) Trying to convince him that it wasn't his fault through the basement door, one time.
b) Repeatedly trying to convince him that it wasn't his fault through the basement door.
c) Trying to convince him not to kill himself, that it's ok to go on living, that it wasn't his fault, etc. through the basement door, one time.
d) Repeatedly trying to convince him not to kill himself, that it's ok to go on living, that it wasn't his fault, etc. through the basement door.
e) Breaking down the basement door to try to convince him not to kill himself, that it's ok to go on living, that it wasn't his fault, etc. one time.
f) Breaking down the basement door to try to convince him not to kill himself, that it's ok to go on living, that it wasn't his fault, etc. repeatedly.
g) Breaking down the basement door and confiscating the razors (for the moment) while you try to convince him not to kill himself, that it's ok to go on living, that it wasn't his fault, etc. one time.
h) Breaking down the basement door and confiscating the razors (for the moment) while you try to convince him not to kill himself, that it's ok to go on living, that it wasn't his fault, etc. repeatedly.
i) Confiscating the razors permanently, and doing the whole "convincing" thing once or possibly many times, depending on whether he still tries to hurt himself.
j) Confiscating the razors permanently and keep him physically restrained from hurting himself, possibly using force to do so.



Scenario 2: Person Y is a self-mutilator. He has no diagnosed psychological problems although he is mildly depressed, and he is not inflicting enough damage to kill himself or lose consciousness, but you suspect he will try to attempt suicide if he is prevented from mutilating himself.

Anyone who supports prevention of self-mutilation or suicide, would you support the following measures:

a) Trying to convince him to stop, once.
b) Trying to convince him to stop, repeatedly.
c) Trying to convince him to stop and seek help if he is depressed, once.
d) Trying to convince him to stop and seek help if he is depressed, repeatedly.
e) Confiscate the implements he uses while you try to convince him of the above, once.
f) Confiscate the implements he uses while you try to convince him of the above, repeatedly.
g) Confiscate the implements permanently and try to convince him to seek help, once. If he tries to commit suicide, allow him to do so.
h) Confiscate the implements permanently and try to convince him to seek help. If he tries to commit suicide, allow him to choose between doing so and mutilating himself (i.e., give back the implements).
i) Confiscate the implements permanently and try to convince him to seek help. If he tries to commit suicide, stop him and give back the implements.
j) Confiscate the implements permanently and try to convince him to seek help. If he tries to commit suicide, stop him.
k) Take him to a mental hospital against his will, possibly using force.

[Lacrimi de Chiciură]

I think the term "mutilation" is pretty subjective. Mutilation sounds painful and destructive, but how many people would consider pierced ears to be mutilated?

If someone is in a manic/insane state and trying to harm themselves, they should be prevented from doing so if possible and given help. For example, I read something about two guys who sawed each other's arms off with a hack saw... well three of their arms: What the hell? Doing something like that is insane and pointless. I feel that as human beings, we have somewhat of a duty to help people who aren't thinking sanely from doing something they will regret; it's common courtesy and I hope someone would do the same for me. But otherwise, people who want to alter their body in some way should be free to do so if that is what they wish.

[BlessedBesse]

I think there are people who want help and people who don't want help.

If a person is dedicated to mutilating themselves and doesn't want help, forcing them to seek aid isn't really going to solve any of their problems.

What's important is having mechanisms in place to give aid to those that want it. There are people out there who are hurting themselves and need help but can't get it, and I think that's a terrible place to be.

on a personal note - I am no longer a self-mutilator. I'm resistant to the societal programming that suffering = bad and self injury = unhealthy... bloodletting was considered therapeutic for a large part of history. That period of personal turmoil has ultimately become a font of strength for me and I wouldn't have wanted anyone to take that away.


Niemand -- I think it's naive to think that eradicating capitalism will somehow also eradicate human drama and suffering. Even in utopia, people will still suffer human nature. Human nature will not change based on the presence or absence of economic institutions.

[TC]

Part of being a person, a full fledged member of society, means that you are an end onto yourself, with your own interests, desires, and goals for yourself. Human emancipation means that people can lead the lives they want without interference.

When someone's body is put to the service of another person, people, or institution, they are reduced to slavery. People being seen as means whether means of material production or biological reproduction or means of emotional or social stability are no longer being treated as persons but as objects to which other person's act upon. This is the dehumanizing essence of oppression.

This is why all human, civil and political rights are predicated on one's absolute sovereignty over their own bodies. If someone's body is not for their exclusive use but instead for another's use, or a "communities use" (a community being nothing more than a collection of other persons) then they're alienated and oppressed on the most basic level possible.


This entails that there is no right to interfere with someone harming their body or attempting to kill themselves. To make someone live who doesn't want to amounts to making them live for someone else, for the person or people who stopped them, and that again amounts to a type of slavery, it amounts to controlling another in a way to deprive them of their autonomy.

[apathy maybe]

Just a quick post. Probably somewhere around f for the first one, with g being the maximum (depending on the circumstances, similarly e would be the maximum for the second.

Also I agree basically with TC.

[Niemand]

Originally posted by [email protected] 08, 2007 04:22 pm

Niemand -- I think it's naive to think that eradicating capitalism will somehow also eradicate human drama and suffering. Even in utopia, people will still suffer human nature. Human nature will not change based on the presence or absence of economic institutions.
I guess it is naive to think that we can rid the world of all these evils, but I still think that self-mutilation would drastically decrease in a communist world.

[Never Give In]

Originally posted by [email protected] 01, 2007 12:24 am
When/should other individuals intervene when someone is cutting themselves or threatens to chop off their arm or something? When/should the community, AS THE COMMUNITY, in our Red Utopia intervene? Should we let people who cut themselves be, even if we know they need psychological help? Should we ever strap them to a gurney to prevent them from physically damaging themselves?
No, people should not intervene.

In any Leftist society, especially Anarchist, complete liberty should also mean the liberty to take one's own life or harm themselves.

I'm never going to kill myself, I don't look at life like that, but I wouldn't try and stop someone I didn't know from suicide. Call me selfish, but if I saw a family member or friend trying to kill themselves I would intervene, but again, I should also have the complete liberty to do so.

[MarxSchmarx]

thanks for the replies everyone!! indeed it seems the consensus is we shouldn't physically intervene in cases of self-mutilation, which seems different from the finality of suicide or the physical addiction of drug abuse. So if we say people in this situation can only be helped if they consciously want it.

I'm still concerned about people in this situation who delude themselves into thinking they don't want/need help. Do you think there is a sensible and effective middle ground between shrugging our soldiers and saying "too bad" and throwing them in a padded cell??

[Pink Moon]

Actually I also have a question: can suicide be seen as a form of God Complex?

[Black Dagger]

Usually it's a form of depression.

[awayish]

rights are community concepts. they serve functions and are used to assert 'the correct social behavior,' although in variety of ways.

in any case, if rights do not serve this purpose, fuck them. abandon them as useless.

in this particular problem, why the 'allow' or 'disallow' options only. it is not as if humans are mystical jars of randomness, you know there is a chance of recovery, so try to recover.

it is key to separate conventions and norms from welfare.

i take mutilatiton to mean serious mutilation, if it si something minor well it is a learning experience.

anyway, a point should be made about the individual's burden in this matter. maybe have a healthy respect for the instrumental use of social norms, and say, ok, this is what you guys think, i'll try to be open to attempts at conversation and so forth.

[MarxSchmarx]

in this particular problem, why the 'allow' or 'disallow' options only.

Could you give an example of a potential middle-ground or something in between? Even "discourage" is actually to "allow" to someone that doesn't care. It seems to me we either let the behavior continue, or put someone in a straightjacket.



maybe have a healthy respect for the instrumental use of social norms, and say, ok, this is what you guys think, i'll try to be open to attempts at conversation and so forth.

Could you clarify by what you mean by "instrumental use", maybe help us to visualize this??

[awayish]

a social norm does not have a set linguistic form, it can be expressed in various ways, but on the level of an intentional statement. such as, 'hairy men!' 'men shouldn't be hairy!' 'hairy men should shave' etc. a non-instrumental respect for these norms is to partake in them, to agree to the 'hairy men should shave.' an instrumental respect, a term i think i'm using out of laziness. here it means those norms that are established as practical actions forced by realist prospects. say you enter a school wearing a gun, the norm would be for them to check it, and the norm is there as an instrument, a practicality. you would do well to realise that, in checking you or taking away the gun, it is not meant as disrespect for your nonviolent credence but just a matter of practical function.



i said 'why allow or disallow' in objection to this framing's authoritarian impression. for sure, 'allow' and 'disallow' are used in a peculiar social setting, expressing certain social attitudes. the middle ground, if you wish, is one of communicative understanding coupled with physiological understanding. it is part therapy and part informed treatment.

[MarxSchmarx]

here it means those norms that are established as practical actions forced by realist prospects... you would do well to realise that, in checking you or taking away the gun, it is not meant as disrespect for your nonviolent credence but just a matter of practical function.


Ok, so what are those realist prospects in the socialist future. At the risk of digressing, in your example, what if this person DOESN'T realize that checking the gun is a necessity? We would, presumably, refuse entry to the school of someone who refuses to hand over the gun. If they try to barge their way in we would physically restrain it.

The question seems, can we apply a similar "practical" restraint to those who practice self-mutilation?


the middle ground, if you wish, is one of communicative understanding coupled with physiological understanding. it is part therapy and part informed treatment.

Again, the problem seems to be what we would do with people who don't want therapy or "informed treatment", and when someone who "understands" the help others want to give doesn't want that help.

No doubt many who engage in self-mutilation are open to counseling. But it's the group that wants to be left alone to cut away that I want to focus on here.

[AGITprop]

hey...alot of people mutilate themselves..piercings...brandings...tattoos...scar ification...
i have 2 tattoos..its my body...my parents try to persuade me out of it..its annoying..they shouldnt...but i still do it...because i ENJOY IT! its my right to enjoy myself...its not seriously hurting anyone else...and like ym tattoo artist always says

Artist: So how you holding up?
Me: Pretty good, hurts a bit but its going numb, the outline killed like a ***** though!
Artist: Really? I dont feel a thing on this end...


lol

[.eco-anarchist.]

I believe in everyone in society working to provide a good life for everyone else, both through mutual aid and love. But if that can't help everyone, then I believe anyone who wants to harm themselves has a right to do so.

You're not inside of their mind, there is no reason you should think you can "fix" them.

[Dimentio]

Human. Rights. Are. A. Human. Construct.

With that said, we cannot deal with "rights" as something derived from a higher source.

Human rights is what enhance human survival, and the possibilities of the human being to express herself. These rights cannot exist if we are not actively prepared to use violence to defend them.

Self-Mutilation is possible, and I would not like to ban it (a ban would be quite inefficient) but I cannot see in what way it is a human right.

[.eco-anarchist.]

Originally posted by [email protected] 11, 2007 07:11 am
thanks for the replies everyone!! indeed it seems the consensus is we shouldn't physically intervene in cases of self-mutilation, which seems different from the finality of suicide or the physical addiction of drug abuse. So if we say people in this situation can only be helped if they consciously want it.

I'm still concerned about people in this situation who delude themselves into thinking they don't want/need help. Do you think there is a sensible and effective middle ground between shrugging our soldiers and saying "too bad" and throwing them in a padded cell??
If people don't want help, then they don't want help. There really isn't a middle ground.

If you delude yourself into a belief, the belief is still real, as if it were always there. If someone wants help, help them. But only when they ask. Otherwise anything you do is harmful to them, in their own minds.

[Dimentio]

We should at least try to engage people who are lonely or mentally ill to prevent such things to occur. That is partially based on utilitarianism - minimisation of suffering.

[LogicalPimp]

Lonely? I was happy last night, at a party, and said oh shit I want to remember this night for the rest of my life: cut cut cut!

[Dimentio]

Originally posted by [email protected] 15, 2007 08:55 pm
Lonely? I was happy last night, at a party, and said oh shit I want to remember this night for the rest of my life: cut cut cut!
And mentally disturbed. ^^

[MarxSchmarx]

If you delude yourself into a belief, the belief is still real, as if it were always there. If someone wants help, help them. But only when they ask. Otherwise anything you do is harmful to them, in their own minds.

What about "cries for help" like attempted suicide, or cutting oneself? I feel we can't just shrug our shoulders and say "well they don't want help."

Deranged people don't think like you and me. Sometimes we need to speak their language and make an honest effort to approach things from their perspective, rather than taking their words at face value, don't you think?

[Nathan_Morrison]

Originally posted by Pink [email protected] 12, 2007 03:26 am
Actually I also have a question: can suicide be seen as a form of God Complex?
Well i can safely say that is bullshit considering i used to be suicidal. It is a result of depression and to those people who are claiming that suicide and depression would be gone under capitalism, no, you would not be able to stop things such as child molest and bullying and people who are born into a family with a history of depression, whether it be clinical or manic.

I originally did not want to go and get help, for when i was self harming but thanks to the people around me,(being generally nice people who cared about me)i did get help and manage to kick addiction of self harming after i started getting help from a doctor.

I fully agree with what Marx Schmarx is saying.

[synthesis]

Like many other irrational human behaviors, self-mutilation is a natural product of mental processes and must be treated as such; however, as with other destructive practices "natural" does not mean "right". Physical intervention is an invasion of privacy, but there should be strong cultural and social reinforcements against self-destructive behavior, rather than a policy of apathy. I sincerely doubt that most self-mutilators truly want to be driven to harm themselves.

Suicide is a different matter. I actually do believe that this extends beyond the individual because whether or not they perceive themselves to be "alone in the world" it is a pretty cruel thing to do to the people around them. Again if someone is truly determined upon the act then it is their right, and suicide should never be associated with the emotion of shame, but there should be some sort of strong unwritten policy that people considered suicidal should be given help to the greatest extent possible without disregarding their right to do what they want with their own body.

[cappin]

I had a friend who cut herself. She said she did it for the classic reasons. Like she was depressed and her life was out of control and so on. I don't think that was it, though. First, she was "gothic"/"emo" as she called herself and I thought it more of her trying to fit into a fad than anything. With it came "it's my body, I'm an individual, and I can do what I want!" I remember our foster mother trying to control her. She'd make her sit down and write over and over how she was bad and she shouldn't cut herself. This just made her want to do it more. We laughed in the office and wrote, instead, about how we were going to date who we wanted and dress how we wanted.

She'd stick pins through her lip, too. I never tried to stop her. I figured that she was going to do what she wanted and trying to "help" only made it worse, and in fact, was the factor that made her do it.

[Le Libérer]

I believe self mutilation is a form of "self medicating" It is like drugs and eating disorders because it numbs emotional pain or gives the feeling of regaining control of ones life. I'm not sure if it is an addiction like drugs, that is something worth looking into.

I dont see it as a human right. I do see counseling or rehab as a human right to combat these issues.

[TC]

rights are community concepts. they serve functions and are used to assert 'the correct social behavior,' although in variety of ways.

No, they're not, and simply asserting a highly contentious value loaded definition without providing evidence or argument for why this should be accepted as the case is frankly stupid.


Originally posted by MarxSchmarx+--> (MarxSchmarx)
Could you give an example of a potential middle-ground or something in between? Even "discourage" is actually to "allow" to someone that doesn't care. It seems to me we either let the behavior continue, or put someone in a straightjacket.
[/b]

Not really. You have the right to cut yourself, and I have the right to tell you that you shouldn't do it as it makes you look stupid and forearm razor scars go out of fashion faster than tattoos, that it weirds people out and makes people feel uncomfortable.

I don't have the right to lock you up because you're doing something to your body that makes me feel uncomfortable. To think that individuals or "society as a whole" (which is of course, just a selected collection of individuals, abstracted to give them more credibility) can stop someone from doing what they want to their own body is the basis of paternalistic, conservative ideology. The fact that people who don't identify themselves as conservatives don't feel this urge to control other human beings over issues like gay sex or abortion doesn't mean that their urge to control other human beings over issues like cutting or suicide or drug use is any more valid than homophobic or anti-choice conservatives parallel desires.


Originally posted by [email protected]
a social norm does not have a set linguistic form, it can be expressed in various ways, but on the level of an intentional statement. such as, 'hairy men!' 'men shouldn't be hairy!' 'hairy men should shave' etc. a non-instrumental respect for these norms is to partake in them, to agree to the 'hairy men should shave.' an instrumental respect, a term i think i'm using out of laziness. here it means those norms that are established as practical actions forced by realist prospects. say you enter a school wearing a gun, the norm would be for them to check it, and the norm is there as an instrument, a practicality. you would do well to realise that, in checking you or taking away the gun, it is not meant as disrespect for your nonviolent credence but just a matter of practical function.



i said 'why allow or disallow' in objection to this framing's authoritarian impression. for sure, 'allow' and 'disallow' are used in a peculiar social setting, expressing certain social attitudes. the middle ground, if you wish, is one of communicative understanding coupled with physiological understanding. it is part therapy and part informed treatment.

I love when arrogant people who don't know what they're talking about try to be psudo-philosophical as if it provides their poorly thought out opinion some kindof superior authority.


Serpent
Human. Rights. Are. A. Human. Construct.

With that said, we cannot deal with "rights" as something derived from a higher source.

Human rights is what enhance human survival, and the possibilities of the
human being to express herself. These rights cannot exist if we are not actively prepared to use violence to defend them.

Self-Mutilation is possible, and I would not like to ban it (a ban would be quite inefficient) but I cannot see in what way it is a human right.


Rights do not depend on people acknowledging them, or being able to defend them effectively, if that were the case than they would be an empty set equal to what people actually did. The idea of rights requires the idea of violations of rights, of wrongs.

This does not require any derivation from a "higher source". Human rights are derived not from power, society, or a "higher source" but from areas where recognition of exclusive personal interests is a prerequisite to recognition of personhood. To deny someone exclusive dominion over their physical body entails denying them personhood, it entails treating them as an object rather than an agent. This is not true for say, denying someone the right to vote, which is why thats a civil right and not a human right, to deny it isn't to deny them personhood its to deny them citizenship and full participation in civil society.