We really shouldn't lump euthanasia in with suicide. Even if they look identical on paper, euthanasia requires the individual to be mentally sound and free from depression—though, to be honest, I’m not entirely sure how much weight that holds, given the counterargument that the very desire to die could itself be a symptom of depression. As for suicidal ideation, my understanding of how things work here in the States is that the standard practice is to hospitalize someone against their will. I actually find that pretty understandable; it isn't meant to strip away someone's freedom (even if it feels that way), but rather to provide help—since, as I mentioned before, wanting to end one's life usually points toward an underlying disorder, most often depression.
Even though they aren't quite the same thing, you could draw a parallel to how we legally restrict certain business responsibilities for people dealing with specific mental health issues. So, I would argue that yes, we do have a right to intervene to prevent someone from committing suicide, especially when those thoughts are just a symptom of an illness.
Linda Price5 said:We are talking about human beings here. Infants. The idea that you can isolate an experimental group from a control group so perfectly that they differ by nothing but one single variable is... well, it's a biological impossibility.
Linda Price5 said:No ethics board in the country would permit total social isolation of children just to study language acquisition, yet history shows us such cases have happened. Let’s be realistic: people rarely seek permission from an oversight committee before engaging in abuse or neglect. Documented instances of early childhood emotional deprivation are part of the record.
That’s a fair point, but if we’re looking at this through a methodological lens, we’re dealing with ex post facto designs here. In these scenarios, you can't be one hundred percent certain that the experimental group and the control group differ solely because of that one independent variable. Because of that uncertainty, it’s a bit of a stretch to draw definitive conclusions about actual cause-and-effect relationships.
It would be so much easier if we actually had clear-cut answers to questions like this—but unfortunately, we just don't. I mean, what kind of ethics board in the US would ever greenlight an experiment where you have one group of infants being rocked and soothed by their mothers, while the other group is just left there crying all alone? Not to mention the fact that the human psyche and our overall development are so incredibly complex—it honestly feels like we’ll never truly pinpoint which specific factor out of the millions is driving a particular aspect of how someone experiences life or behaves. To be honest, the parenting method mentioned in the post doesn't sound particularly great either, but there is a very real chance that the child won't end up growing into some kind of emotional wreck.
Look, nobody is out here trying to screw anyone over. First off, saying "the first three years are the most important" is just a marketing slogan—you have to take it as such. It’s true that growth and development move at lightning speed during that window, and you're building that foundational attachment that serves as the bedrock for all future relationships, but it would be pretty reckless to claim those first three years are the absolute most vital period of a person's life. If we actually believed that, we’d essentially be suggesting that three-year-olds who didn't get proper care, nutrition, or healthy social interaction could just be tossed aside without a second thought or any ethical crisis—as if they're just permanently screwed.
jadetinker85, there is a massive mountain of research out there regarding child development and its various facets. If you can, let me know specifically what you're looking into.
What would actually happen if someone forced you to eat a slice of watermelon with just your fingers? What if you ended up making a mess? Or what if you turned to a lady on the bus and said, "I am so sorry, my legs really ache—I've had a rough day and I just can't manage to stand up for you"? I’m asking because it feels to me like there’s this underlying layer of anxiety baked right into your "culture." See, there is a massive difference between being polite and being so obsessed with rigid rules that you lose all flexibility.
Robert Martinez6, can I throw a bit of a "provocative" question your way? What would actually happen if you just... stopped being polite? Like, what if you completely ditched all the social graces? Imagine if you were out in public and decided to eat a whole watermelon with your bare hands, or if you just stayed seated and didn't offer up your spot to someone else on the subway. Can you even picture that scenario? Walk us through it—how would that play out, and more importantly, how would it make you feel?