Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

LostLetterbox t1_iyuo606 wrote

The biggest thing that strikes me here is the problem of serving multiple masters.

There are two identities in the hermit and the giant and it's morally complex to try and serve both, especially if those interests are competing...

A similar debate occurs in treatments where the interests of a mother and unborn baby don't align, and are probably similar again for multiple personalities...

Another fascinating one is that psychiatrists can serve the interests of the state/community (harm prevention) or the interests of the patient...

As far as I know any legal principles in this domain, where there is a physical codependency, are at best grey. Does consent need to be unanimous or is majority rule ok? Can some entities be disenfranchised through mental fitness, are these thresholds different from a single entity? If the principle of integration of multiple personalities within one physical entity is seen as morally sound does that have implications for the treatment chosen for a person (or parts of a person) given they need to integrate with society writ large?

Another area I haven't looked at but would have some bearing is conjoined twins, especially situations where separation is impossible (physically, ethically, or both)?

If a healer chooses to bear guilt beyond what society asks they do I think it's a personal decision, if they've fulfilled their duties to the best of their ability, and society has deemed them capable of executing those duties based on a reasonable burden of information what more can we ask for?

3

Unity-Druid OP t1_iyuok3v wrote

Along these lines: it's not uncommon to see people who are floridly psychotic or display a serious inability to care for themself be legally committed to the care of the hospital involuntarily, or to have guardianship assigned to a relative or other legal guardian. In these cases, a simple question raises grave concerns: what if the person with legal guardianship secretly but potently hates the person for whom they are enabled to make medical decisions?

2

LostLetterbox t1_iyuov3j wrote

Australia had an issue with one of our public trusts (which can take over financial custodianship when no alternative is available)... They were, in my opinion, unethically billing them which one might interpret as theft...

Mental capacity is a huge issue even before multiple personalities enter the fray. If I had better answers I might try to complain louder.

2

Unity-Druid OP t1_iyupdox wrote

I feel I can empathize with your last sentence there. At the psych hospital where I work, in the US, I care for many patients who have been involuntarily committed. Although I have deep ethical concerns about many practices in American psychiatry, and the American Mental Health Court system, people only become committed to the hospital's care after they have fallen through every safety net and crack in society, of which there are desperately few to begin with. This is the best we have, at the moment, but I see a large part of my life's work as the fight toward a better, more ethical, more compassionate system.

3

LostLetterbox t1_iyupgno wrote

Don't burn out! You're too important ❤️

2

Unity-Druid OP t1_iyuqsbh wrote

Thank you, I really appreciate that. Thanks for caring about the good fight.

1