[wizofaus]

On the surface that seems like a solid argument - but I think there are some key differences when comparing a situation where a cancer patient refuses surgery and somebody with mental illness refuses help getting their lives in shape. For a start surgery is clearly a much more invasive and risky operation, and even if successful at removing the cancer, can leave the patient in a physically weakened/dependent state for some period of time. It also clearly requires highly-trained specialists to perform the operation and can only be done in controlled environs (operating theatre etc.). If there were any suggestion this were true for providing assistance for the severely mentally ill, then I'd be more inclined to agree with you that there's no good justification for imposing such treatment without their express consent. As it is, I certainly agree that there needs to be a strong system of checks and balances for any such scenario, including time-limits over how long it's legal to hold somebody against their will. As it is, we don't let dementia patients simply do whatever they like even if they initially consented to entering a care facility, but then no longer want to stay there (which is not uncommon). Whether it's a duty-of-care argument, or simply that doing so would result in too much risk to others, at some point we have to accept even grown adults are no longer capable of rational/informed consent, and we do actually have doctors trained in making such diagnoses.

[notch656a]

I think the gulf between opinions here is I see adulthood (and fundamentals like ability to do as you please to your own body) as irrevocable until at least a crime against a (not yourself) victim has been performed. Ideally I would live in a society where people have agreed to such, in practice I've just tried to move to places where the least number of people such as my counterparty above exist so as to reduce my exposure to such impositions of violence. In practice I've ended up in fairly rural western states where individualism is highly preserved, you can do things like buy weed without a card or carry a gun without a license and hell even be senile/demented/schizophrenic at the same time as both and as long as you don't fuck with anyone else people tend to not impose anything on you -- notwithstanding no such place perfectly does this and you'll no doubt find horrible counterexamples where this didn't play out.

I do not think the alternative society that say maximizes certain utilities at the cost of consent is wrong per se as long as it's possible to freely enter/exit such a society, I just find it incompatible with my values. While I disagree with the notion of stopping someone who has asked his/her respects to be honored in regard to suicide, I don't think it's some moral failing if a private individual makes an in-the-moment reaction to stop them. It's pretty much human instinct to try to preserve innocent life of those around us, so hopefully it hasn't been read that I think you're a bad person or something if you see someone cutting themselves and you stop them.

[t-3]

Would not someone refusing treatment for cancer be diagnosed with mental illness?

[devilbunny]

No. Refusing treatment for some cancers might be a sign of mental illness, though not definitive proof. Testicular cancer, for example, is highly amenable to treatment. Whereas pancreatic cancer is not. Refusing treatment for pancreatic cancer is entirely rational - the chances of a cure are almost nil unless it's caught incidentally during another procedure and can be surgically removed.