lobotomy

[AllanS]

[robsia]

[AllanS]

[robsia]

That is what sectioning is for. So that a patient who is suffering from a mental disorder can be detained for treatment for their own benefit, possibly against their will.

If it could be proven that this was a valid medical technique to turn an insane person into a normal human being then this would be acceptable under the Mental Health Act and considered as 'treatment'.

Their criminal activities would essentially be irrelevent in such cases, it would be their state of mind that was the factor. Not all criminals suffer from mental disorders. Or are you saying that doing bad things stems from a mental disorder and that a 'normal' state of mind is being sweetness and light all the time? If that is the case, then I think we must ALL be suffering from mental disorders. Don't we all do bad things sometimes? Isn't that what is called 'sin'.

Developing this idea, if this treatment could turn us all into sinless beings and if all people were forced to undergo it whether they wanted to or not, would that be a good thing? Given that the result would be a sinless world.

Specifically answering your question about the psychopath, if I did such a thing then it would definitely be a violation of his rights and probably a crime. But if he was detained under the Mental health Act and the treatment was performed by a doctor, then it would be fine. Do you see the difference?

It's the difference between theft and taxation.

[AllanS]

[Steve]

Just because in one case having a stroke ended criminality, it doesn't mean it would work for everyone.

Another question -- was his change of heart purely and simply the consequence of the stroke?
Maybe the stroke left him unable to move about for a while, and during that time he reflected on his life and realized he was doing wrong, and he chose to think differently.

[robsia]

Who said anything about it being magic? It is law. The law says that a doctor has the right to detain a person for treatment against his or her will. If they do it according to the law they cannot be prosecuted.

If I do it, then I can be prosecuted as I have commited a crime. This is about law, not morality. That's an entirely different kettle of fish.

Forcing medical treatments on people aginst their will can only be done under the law. Now whether the law is right or not is for you to decide and form your own opinion. But if you wanted to do this to people, it would have to be done according to the law, or it couldn't be done at all. It's like euthanasia or assisted suicide. Some people think this is totally wrong and some people think it's acceptable under certain circumstances.

Regardless of the morality of it, it is legal in some countries and not in others. If I go to Switzerland I can legally have my life ended by nice people in white coats and no one can touch them. If I do it here, they go to prison.

Some people would say what you propose is totally wrong and some people would think it's acceptable. But if it was to be done, it would have to be done legally or everyone goes to prison.

[jo]

Here's a link to the EF thread on the same subject ... I have posted a link to this thread over there too. This one seems to be going down different, and rather interesting channels .. I tend to agree with Robsia, will muster some thoughts later:

[robsia]

Had another thought on this. There is a difference between human-given 'human rights' and God-given 'human rights'.

For example, the right to bear arms in the US is is a legal right given to humans by humans and is not necessarily shared by all humans.

And yet most people would probably agree that there are certain 'rights' which could be described as God-given, which no one has the right to take from you. Whether we would all agree on the same ones is a different matter.

The question is whether not to receive medical treatment against one's will is a human-given right or a God-given one. As the law stands right now, it is a human-given right.

You could also say that God intervened in this man's case to treat him Himself, which is his Divine right of course. Naturally God would have the right to supersede any God or human-given rights. But do we? God has the right to take life whenever he chooses. Do we? (Again the euthanasia issue - it might better for the patient to diebut do we have the right to kill them for their own good?).

Anyway, a stroke is not the same as a lobotomy. One is a surgical removal of part of the brain, the other is loss of part of brain function or loss of consciousness due to an interruption in the blood supply to all or part of the brain.

[Leslie]

You do hear of people undergoing drastic personality changes due to brain injury, but they are not always positive changes. See this account of Phineas Gage: . His experience seems to have been in the opposite direction to Fred's.

In the mid-twentieth century, lobotomies were performed to "treat" certain forms of mental illness or disability, but the results were unpredictable. Perhaps the most well-known case is that of Rosemary Kennedy, sister of JFK, who was lobotomized in her early twenties due to mild mental problems, and was thereby almost completely disabled. The procedure has fallen out of favour, due to concerns about its ethics and usefulness.

[AllanS]

[AllanS]

[robsia]

[AllanS]

[Leslie]