To be clear, I’m not suggesting we do what I’m about to propose, I just think it’s an interesting ethical/moral thought experiment.
If we could find a lot of people who want to unalive themselves, and say to them: there’s been a disaster and there are a lot of people who are stuck (e.g. a mine collapse, or 9/11 or something like that) and it’s a dangerous situation for rescue workers to go into, since you don’t care if you die we’re gonna send you in… would it be an ethical or moral thing to do? To ask or make people who don’t care if they live or not, to go into a situation that there’s a known high risk that they won’t survive?
(Also, I not asking wether it is a good idea to send such people in or wether it would be effective — I’m only interested in the ethics/morality of such an idea)
We keep suicidal people out of those situations because they increase death tolls.
That’s what I thought. If they knew they were going into a life threatening situation, I guess it could be counterproductive as they might just seek to end themselves rather than do the task at hand (which might be to rescue people).
Its been a while since I’ve seen it, but would it eventually do a Lethal Weapon?
While actually being able to help people might give people a reason to live, they might just step inside the door of a burning building, sit down, and wait for smoke inhalation ot take them, in which case, all you’re really offering then is a method. So I’d say a full analysis of your plan would actually include EFFECTIVENESS; that is to say, what is the likely result of this action has some bearing.
But, if you’re just interested in ethics, the broadly accepted ethic is that people are not allowed to kill themselves OR put themselves in dangerous situation because they want to die. In fact, if your mental health care worker SUSPECTS you of planning to do that, they’re supposed to notify the state and the state evaluates you and locks you up against your will. And if the mental health practitioner does not do that and you do unalive yourself, they could lose their license and be sued into the ground by remaining family.
Despite the fact that forced hospitals stays do nothing–and are arguably worse–than other approaches that respect the patient’s autonomy; despite the fact that calling the police destroys any trust a client has with a therapist, who is maybe their only person; despite the fact that this pressure makes the population of therapists willing to see suicidal patients much smaller…
So, yeah, there’s things to be said about it, but I think your scenario is easily unethical under the current regime.
See the Fukushima reactor clean ups.
I prefer the K-19 reactor repair tbh
In each instance, end was near but the drive to live was not gone. It’s just surrender to the fact that someone had to make it happen.
Yes, although there is one interesting point about the K-19: according to the captain of the sub, when the disaster began, he did began to experience suicidal thoughts:
“At one point, I thought of going down to my cabin, drawing my pistol and finishing all my problems at once,” he said.
What I find interesting is that though he continued on, he didn’t voluntarily go into the reactor himself, instead sending ‘volunteers’ in.
Source: https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1994-01-03-mn-8123-story.html
How would this even work? Recruit on the suicide prevention line? How would you train suicidal people? Just give them the rundown on the way to the earthquake or mine disaster? Do we think suicidal people are organized, motivated, fit, and competent?
Wholly irrelevant to the question of whether it’s ethical or not. The debate over whether it’s feasible is a separate debate entirely. I asked if it’s ethical/moral.
