Hesterry

We seem to have veered off topic. This isn't an issue of information, it's more an issue of utilitarianism - it just happens to be that the case is very direct. If life-saving measures have a 9:1 life:death ratio, regardless of whether or not the subjects are informed, are those life-saving measures morally sound?

Ruh roh, there goes the medical-legal system xD

Thanks for being the first person to not completely dodge the question, Robin! *fully informing them. Frankly, no one is fully informed. Ever. They can't be unless they become a doctor, and thoroughly research the issues at hand. Even the simplest of operations has hundreds of risks, many of which the doctors themselves aren't even aware of. It's like a language barrier - the patients are simply incapable of completely understanding the risks. If you'll accept that as fact (for the next 30 seconds, at least), do you still feel that this "magic gun" is still immoral, even though doctors do the same thing?

What does the medium matter? Sure, there are no magic guns. However, what if someone had the potential to do something similar? I'm confused as to why it matters what the actual scenario is, when the question is the same. Do we have the right to help people, with or without their knowledge, even if there is a risk of killing them? Although this question didn't stem from this particular scenario, take a look at doctors. They treat and operate on people without fully informing them of the risks all the time. Is that right? Even if their intent is to help? Eventually, an active doctor or medical technician is going to kill them - it's innevitable. Is it still okay for them to practice, when their patients don't understand the risk? PS - This isn't an "emergency ethics" issue. The reason I presented my (very real, by the way) issue is because if I presented the actual facts, one of two things will result: 1) Misunderstanding, and/or 2) Disbelief. I've found that by using a metaphor I can more easily convey the significance of the issue, and not cloud people's judgement by giving useless facts that will only confuse the question.

First and foremost, I never said anything about a friend - talking purely about random people =P Also, understand that being sympathetic towards people offers comfort, not help. I'm talking about helping, which doesn't always have room for playing nice (as was mentioned earlier, in the case of drug addicts, they often need to be forced into a clinic). Perhaps if I rephrase the question it'll be easier to get it across... Lets say you have a magical gun. This gun has a 90% chance of curing people of their latent unhappiness - unhappiness that will, most likely, slowly ruin their lives if left unchecked. However, there is a 10% chance that this gun will simply ruin their lives immediately, likely pushing them to suicide. The question is this: Is it "okay" to use this gun? While the odds of genuinely helping people is high, there is always a chance that it will fail, and you'll ruin their lives instead well. Understand that you aren't asking permission here - that's irrelevant to the question. Is using such a tool the "right" thing to do, even though it has a chance of permanently ruining someone?

I can think of one: serious addiction to drugs or alcohol where the treatment involves in-patient facilities for recovery. It's sometimes necessary to use force to check someone in to such a facility. Those who relapse into their addiction after in-patient treatment often suffer much greater. Another excellent example of what I'm trying to get at =)

People are often highly afraid of themselves - which is almost exclusively what causes self-deception. It's not unusual for people to relapse/digress when they are confronted with their own fears. For example (and this is a bit of an extreme example), a woman - lets say her name is Marry - is raped. For years she is in complete denial. However, even in denial, many unerlying effects of the rape slowly drag her down into depression. Forcing Marry to re-live and cope with her rape could certainly eliminate her depression (over time, of course), but it could also cause a mental break, and she could end up institutionalized. Does that help? :O

We all know people have a tendency to deceive themselves into thinking they have (or do not have) a particular personality trait, desire, or whatnot. It's a simple self-defense mechanism that boosts confidence - after all, without confidence, we fall apart. Unfortunately, these deceptions are often formed with the purpose of covering up severe trauma in our pasts, and, even more unfortunately, they often guide us into the same pain and suffering as we experienced before, often entirely without our knowledge. My question is this. If you had the potential to help someone who was unwittingly walking the path of self-destruction, would it be "okay" to do so, even if there was a risk of failure which could permanently ruin that person's life? If you prefer a mathematical look... lets say you have a 90% chance of significantly improving that person's quality of life, versus a 10% chance of completely ruining them. Is it okay to risk helping them, when it's not you that assumes that risk, even if the benefits may outweigh those very risks? If so, what if we apply these numbers to assisting one-hundred such people? Is it really okay to "save" 90 people, while destroying 10? Alternatively, lets say you were lying to yourself (and weren't aware of it), and this behavior was slowly dragging you down into the depths. Would you want someone to try to help you, even if there was a reasonable risk that it would permanently ruin your life instead of drastically improving it? PS - Try to understand that the issue isn't whether or not the person would be willing to let someone help them if asked - it's whether or not even offering assistance is justifiable with such a high risk of failure, and failure having such dire concequences.