In the moment, you’re not 100% certain the guy wanted to be on fire. The only thing you can do in this case at least is attempt to extinguish.
this post was submitted on 20 Apr 2024
155 points (92.3% liked)
No Stupid Questions
35896 readers
1199 users here now
No such thing. Ask away!
!nostupidquestions is a community dedicated to being helpful and answering each others' questions on various topics.
The rules for posting and commenting, besides the rules defined here for lemmy.world, are as follows:
Rules (interactive)
Rule 1- All posts must be legitimate questions. All post titles must include a question.
All posts must be legitimate questions, and all post titles must include a question. Questions that are joke or trolling questions, memes, song lyrics as title, etc. are not allowed here. See Rule 6 for all exceptions.
Rule 2- Your question subject cannot be illegal or NSFW material.
Your question subject cannot be illegal or NSFW material. You will be warned first, banned second.
Rule 3- Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here.
Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here. Breaking this rule will not get you or your post removed, but it will put you at risk, and possibly in danger.
Rule 4- No self promotion or upvote-farming of any kind.
That's it.
Rule 5- No baiting or sealioning or promoting an agenda.
Questions which, instead of being of an innocuous nature, are specifically intended (based on reports and in the opinion of our crack moderation team) to bait users into ideological wars on charged political topics will be removed and the authors warned - or banned - depending on severity.
Rule 6- Regarding META posts and joke questions.
Provided it is about the community itself, you may post non-question posts using the [META] tag on your post title.
On fridays, you are allowed to post meme and troll questions, on the condition that it's in text format only, and conforms with our other rules. These posts MUST include the [NSQ Friday] tag in their title.
If you post a serious question on friday and are looking only for legitimate answers, then please include the [Serious] tag on your post. Irrelevant replies will then be removed by moderators.
Rule 7- You can't intentionally annoy, mock, or harass other members.
If you intentionally annoy, mock, harass, or discriminate against any individual member, you will be removed.
Likewise, if you are a member, sympathiser or a resemblant of a movement that is known to largely hate, mock, discriminate against, and/or want to take lives of a group of people, and you were provably vocal about your hate, then you will be banned on sight.
Rule 8- All comments should try to stay relevant to their parent content.
Rule 9- Reposts from other platforms are not allowed.
Let everyone have their own content.
Rule 10- Majority of bots aren't allowed to participate here.
Credits
Our breathtaking icon was bestowed upon us by @Cevilia!
The greatest banner of all time: by @TheOneWithTheHair!
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
I mean, if someone pours gasoline over his head and lights himself on fire, you can somewhat reasonably infer an intentionality.
But we can say that with any suicide, if a guy stands on a bridge holding a rock tied to his leg then we will still try to save them because we understand they're going through something.
load more comments
(12 replies)
I mean we make an attempt to stop most suicides on the basis that they're pursued from a kind of irrational train of thought. This isn't to say that that's always actually the case, but we can't be sure of that, so most people wouldn't look at a guy jumping of a bridge and then say "hey do a flip on the way down", you know? We can kind of assume it's more of a last resort, than like a casual pastime or decision that you might just kinda make cause you kinda felt like it. That's just talking about the psychology of people who try to kill themselves mostly, though, for the vast majority it's as a last resort rather than due to a more "rational" reason, or, a more philosophically motivated reason.
It's a much safer assumption to assume they're irrational, anyways, for the same reason that capital punishment is not really a great idea. If you take the opposite as a blanket decision, it's irreversible. If you put out someone who's on fire, or otherwise save someone who's suicidal. you could always just kill them later.
They might have heavy regret once ignited, though.
load more comments
(4 replies)
I guess the options are:
Put them out and fix them.
Leave them alone.
Kill them more quickly.
Nobody is going to stand and watch (or even speed up) something like that without suffering massive trauma themselves.
Right or wrong, they were doing what they thought best and what I imagine most think is best.
Anything else is academical
The presence of fire in a place not designed for it is a threat to the safety of others.
Maybe nobody was hurt, but if the authorities had neglected to put him out, and then someone WAS hurt, that would be on them. So, best to put him out. He can deal with the consequences of his actions.
load more comments
(3 replies)
Obviously, the guy did not want to live.
I'm not sure we can make such a determination. Self immolation is traditionally a form of protest. One can sacrifice oneself for awareness even with a desire to go on living. It's not generally an escape attempt chosen when losing a battle with depression.
load more comments
(1 replies)
I put out all fires I see. If you want to die use inert gas.
You must be a real buzz kill at festivals and camping.
#BannedAtTheOltmpics
#FiredFromThePowerPlant
load more comments
(1 replies)
dark humor ahead
Just let the man cook
police were extinguishing the guy
Obviously, the guy did not want to live.
Human life is to be protected, rescued etc. in all cases.
We need to stay absolutely clear with that, because everything else creates terrible moral problems, for you and all the people around.
And if you want to start thinking such thoughts right there in a situation, it costs way too much valuable time.
Exceptions need to have very clear and very strict rulesThe whole society should agree with these rules. The responsible persons (doctors for example) need to be educated properly.
Human life is to be protected, rescued etc. in all cases.
Where does a DNR and medical assistance in dying fit in this?
There I would expect you to read also the other parts of my comment...
Yes, but you also said it should be protected in “all cases” but went on about “exceptions”. Assistance in dying doesn’t fit this criteria that would make it acceptable as most definitely not everyone agrees with it. Some DNRs don’t either. The idea that the “whole society” needs to agree is also pretty disputable, and comes with its own set of moral issues. The question of professionals being “properly” trained on the matter as well (what does this mean?).
I just think it’s a lot more complex than “save everyone always”, and the exceptions aren’t that straightforward.
load more comments
(1 replies)
I don't disagree with you entirely but there are some areas that do have defined societal rules where life saving is not the legal obligation. Now, this varies by state (some have samaritan laws) but many places you are not under a legal obligation to administer life saving aid. For example, providing CPR in areas considered medical backcountry.
I think it's already a mixed bag and the default position is not "protect/rescue human life in all cases" legally. Morally I would say it's a personal decision, I know I would most of the time in scenarios I can think of but obviously there are scenarios I can't think of.
My point is it's already murky and there are already exceptions.
Edit: actually the more that I think about it the more exceptions I can find your thesis. The first thing they teach you in First Aid/Cpr and the reason my entire class failed and we had to redo a 10 minute exercise to pass is that the #1 priority is your own safety. You have to secure the scene. If saving someone requires endangering yourself you are CLEARLY and unambiguously told to not attempt life saving aid until you can minimize or eliminate risks to yourself. Also see: Yellowstone hotspring rescue attempts, river rescue attempts, etc.
So again, nothing is clear and human life is not to be protected as a rule in "all" cases. EMS and police are not even obligated to save anyone in all cases.
There are no Good Samaritan laws anywhere that require life saving aid.
They only go so far as to require that you alert emergency services; (though not every state goes that far.)
What Good Samaritan laws really do is provide protections as long as you’re stay to reasonable actions.
For example, it’s common for CPR to crack ribs. Without these protections, you’d be liable for that. (For the record, even if you do want to help; etc, always check to see if it’s safe first. Be selfish. You can’t save shit if you’re a body on the ground, too.)
Human life is to be protected, rescued etc. in all cases.
Exceptions need to have very clear and very strict rules
Bruh.
load more comments
(5 replies)
From what I understand, there is very little one can experience that's worse than being a full body burn victim. Whoever intervened did the man no favours.
load more comments
(1 replies)
It's pretty simple. If they didn't want to live, why didn't they self-immolate in a place where no one can put them out? By choosing a place with people they implicitly accepted that there might be people there that would try to not let them die. Maybe they even subconsciously hoped to be stopped.
Stopping physical harm happening to others is a very natural way of behavior. It's almost certain it happens when a couple of people are present. You can't ever blame someone for trying it.
And then there's the case of open fire being able to spread and hurt others.
This whole YouTube channel is filled with interviews of people, families and children making the best of lives many would feel not worth living. Even some failed suicide attempts leaving people with no face but some times better off than before
Its not up to the first reactors to decide if that life is worth living.
Although I feel that people should have the right to decide on their own if they want to live or not, they should be offered and given propped help before.
I’m mixed, first responders shouldn’t decide what lives are worth living, but I also believe in the right to die.
I think we all know how fire works. The moment they set themselves on fire, they'll be in excruciating pain. Doesn't mean it'll be a quick, or even certain death. If you put them out, you could be prolonging their pain, or you could be saving their life. And some things can't be undone. Just try to act in good faith...
That said, there's a big difference between 1 sec after the fire and 90 secs. There's definitely a tipping point where it's more humane to just let them die instead of hours later.
Its not really possible for a human to make that decision in the moment. The only option is to try to save them.
I'll be a bit blunt, but at what point shall we leave some things to natural selection... Very often, those who set themselves on fire, die very soon after due to infections...
The bigger problem is, in this case, the inability of the system/society to recognise and deal with mental health issues on time or at all... About a quarter of Americans reported Mental health issues... In the EU only about 10% or less in countries with high social awareness...
So, I'd rather ask how to prevent those things happening in the future?
load more comments
(1 replies)
You can’t be sure he wasn’t set on fire by someone else ! Plus he might have changed his mind, or extinguish on his own later than you’d have out him out, staying alive and suffering even more.
I’d maybe make an exception for someone calmly sitting as they burn, as I think the Buddhist monks who did this in China were. In those cases it’s pretty easy to see they wanted to be on fire.
But a flaming flailing guy needs to be extinguished, whatever the reason he is on fire.
I can certainly see the point.
However at least in America self immolation and self harm in general pretty well remove your autonomy based on the assumption you're not mentally well enough to make a choice either way.
Even then, if you look at the guy who just did it at Trump's trial and the guy who did it to protest Israel they were on two different levels of cohesion in their reasoning and came to the same decision.
So to answer your question, depends I guess.
If you keep following this logic, this ends up in a pretty shitty ableist place.
If the person does survive they are going to have a pretty serious disability for the rest of their life - that would suck, but saying that we should let them die cos they'd be better off dead than disabled really devalues people who live with disabilities that they ended up with through bad luck.
It's not about being disabled, it's about the horrendous amount of pain they'd be in
load more comments
(1 replies)
the constant physical agony of a burn victim is outside the scope of your quaint little attempt to virtue signal and moralize, here, not to mention you're taking the man's choice away which the cadre you're appealing to would not approve of.
load more comments
(1 replies)
If they have some way of indicating they do not wish to be resuscitated then putting them out is the wrong thing to do.
Otherwise it is hard to say. Fast enough and a lot of the suffering is avoided. Slow and there is a guarantee of suffering and likely death. Not a call I would want to make.
Legally this is similar to euthanasia or abortion. The priority is to keep the person alive at all costs even if it means lifetime of suffering.
Morally... I mean the person did it to himself, i bet he's already suffering. While being ablaze he is a danger to others as pointed out in this thread, and a literal fire hazard. Their suffering (that they caused themselves) takes second priority after safety to others.
load more comments
(3 replies)
view more: next ›