I am going to be generous for the time being in releasing this information. The original form was written down by me as a simple outline. People should think on their own and not just take my word for it. Act sensibly and do your own due diligence in regards to your own plans and decisions. People can use these arguments to argue for their own rights or the rights of others. These are basically arguments for informed consent rights for patients in psychiatry, as a defense against mandatory treatment.
The main argument I've written here is crafted from presuppositional apologetic methodology. People have to study the presuppositional method to understand how to employ this. It is an argument from the Christian worldview. The argument is as follows.
Historically, behavioral medicine developed from behavioral psychology which was developed upon an atheist worldview containing the precept that people have no souls. In such a worldview of naturalism, the preconditions for intelligibility do not exist. In other words, from said worldview, there's no reason to believe that when a person speaks that their words should be intelligible to the listener. The reason for that is, there's no way to prove anything can have meaning from that position. There would be no reason to believe that intelligence and consciousness exist in organic organisms. The worldview testifies against itself, because as a naturalist speaks, by his own profession, he is only the result of causal determinism at best, a consequence of random chain reactions, therefore, how could his words be believed as even understandable or as having any meaning? If there is no meaning, then sanity is not readable. Insanity is not readable either. There would be no way to judge sanity from insanity. Therefore, any said diagnosis is made null and void.
From the naturalist standpoint, there would be no way to blame anybody for anything, but there would be no way to judge either, because there's no standard to follow, no meaning possible, and no way to verify consciousness beyond solipsism. In the absence of human souls, God, and moral will, responsibility cannot meaningfully exist. Therefore, caregivers are free from the "responsibility" of mandating treatment. In their worldview, responsibility consequently does not exist.
Starting from the presupposition that man has a soul, then personal freedom and volition are manifestly human facets. If personal volition exists at some level (most forms of Calvinism allow for some measure of choice on man's behalf, ultimately subject to God's sovereignty) then people are responsible for their actions and are responsible for a great degree in deciding for or against medical treatments. Medications can alter behavior, but they can't alter the moral heart of a person. "For out of the heart come evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, fornications, thefts, false witness, slanders." (Matthew 15:19). No pill can cure the wicked nature of people. The regeneration of the Holy Spirit turns man's heart toward good.
The presupposition that man has no soul ends with the consequence that sanity is not readable. The presupposition that man has a soul ends with the consequence that people have volition and a moral will beyond body chemistry (which is what psych meds target, although treatments involve more than just that.) If people have souls, volition and moral will, and moral responsibility, then they are responsible for deciding about their own treatments (informed consent rights, in essence).
There is a seeming third option (which can always be placed back into one of the first two options), which is that souls have a detectable essence which has gone undetected by science thus far, or the knowledge has not been widely publicized. The danger here is that people would erroneously think that they could tweak souls physically with a pill. There would be no way to prove that whatever has been detected as the "soul" is actually a soul as described in the Bible. That is to say, there still might be a soul beyond what is detectable by the instruments of science and medicine no matter how much they discover. Therefore, there is no way to know how the hidden soul is being effected by man's physical components if there is a part which is undetected. Currently very little is understood about consciousness, as well, but it is recognized that consciousness is tied to volition. Since this is already recognized by scientists, this third option would fall back into option two, the presupposition that there are human souls. If people deny volition in favor of naturalism, their argument reverts back to the first option or presupposition which is based on naturalism. If they are not willing to sacrifice volition and moral will as part of their worldview, they are clinging to the essence of option two which grants man moral responsibility and informed consent rights.
I do not deny that sometimes body chemistry has to be immediately corrected for the benefit and comfort of the individual. However, these arguments are leveled against mandatory treatment, and are in favor of informed consent rights.
Many medical practitioners believe in some kind of higher power, or God Almighty, and human souls. However, standards for practice and clinical procedures and protocols have their academic roots in atheism, evolutionary science, and naturalism. What I'm really criticizing is the doctrines inherent in behavioral medicine, not necessarily all the people who are practicing in that field. Many people are well-intending and just follow protocols and procedures. I believe that many people try to work for good from inside the system.
There are many other worldviews to address other than naturalism and Christianity (fatalism, deism, pantheism, finite godism, etc). However, psychiatry has its presuppositions based in naturalism and athiesm. The truthful force of the Christian worldview provides a means to debunk naturalism. Therefore, those are the two presuppositional standpoints which have been addressed here. I simply provided a way to argue for informed consent in psychiatry from the Christian worldview.
I want to add that no one should ever have to have anything forced into or onto their body against their will (notwithstanding police action against suspects in response to obvious criminal offenses, for which handcuffs and all other aspects of detainment suffice. Although, suspects who don't seem dangerous and want to cooperate should be given lighter treatment somehow). "Do you not know that you are a temple of God and that the Spirit of God dwells in you? If any man destroys the temple of God, God will destroy him, for the temple of God is holy, and that is what you are" (1 Corinthians 3:16).
I will not discuss here the subject of tricky living will scenarios, because that is complicated legal territory, and a little off topic.
The main argument I've written here is crafted from presuppositional apologetic methodology. People have to study the presuppositional method to understand how to employ this. It is an argument from the Christian worldview. The argument is as follows.
Historically, behavioral medicine developed from behavioral psychology which was developed upon an atheist worldview containing the precept that people have no souls. In such a worldview of naturalism, the preconditions for intelligibility do not exist. In other words, from said worldview, there's no reason to believe that when a person speaks that their words should be intelligible to the listener. The reason for that is, there's no way to prove anything can have meaning from that position. There would be no reason to believe that intelligence and consciousness exist in organic organisms. The worldview testifies against itself, because as a naturalist speaks, by his own profession, he is only the result of causal determinism at best, a consequence of random chain reactions, therefore, how could his words be believed as even understandable or as having any meaning? If there is no meaning, then sanity is not readable. Insanity is not readable either. There would be no way to judge sanity from insanity. Therefore, any said diagnosis is made null and void.
From the naturalist standpoint, there would be no way to blame anybody for anything, but there would be no way to judge either, because there's no standard to follow, no meaning possible, and no way to verify consciousness beyond solipsism. In the absence of human souls, God, and moral will, responsibility cannot meaningfully exist. Therefore, caregivers are free from the "responsibility" of mandating treatment. In their worldview, responsibility consequently does not exist.
Starting from the presupposition that man has a soul, then personal freedom and volition are manifestly human facets. If personal volition exists at some level (most forms of Calvinism allow for some measure of choice on man's behalf, ultimately subject to God's sovereignty) then people are responsible for their actions and are responsible for a great degree in deciding for or against medical treatments. Medications can alter behavior, but they can't alter the moral heart of a person. "For out of the heart come evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, fornications, thefts, false witness, slanders." (Matthew 15:19). No pill can cure the wicked nature of people. The regeneration of the Holy Spirit turns man's heart toward good.
The presupposition that man has no soul ends with the consequence that sanity is not readable. The presupposition that man has a soul ends with the consequence that people have volition and a moral will beyond body chemistry (which is what psych meds target, although treatments involve more than just that.) If people have souls, volition and moral will, and moral responsibility, then they are responsible for deciding about their own treatments (informed consent rights, in essence).
There is a seeming third option (which can always be placed back into one of the first two options), which is that souls have a detectable essence which has gone undetected by science thus far, or the knowledge has not been widely publicized. The danger here is that people would erroneously think that they could tweak souls physically with a pill. There would be no way to prove that whatever has been detected as the "soul" is actually a soul as described in the Bible. That is to say, there still might be a soul beyond what is detectable by the instruments of science and medicine no matter how much they discover. Therefore, there is no way to know how the hidden soul is being effected by man's physical components if there is a part which is undetected. Currently very little is understood about consciousness, as well, but it is recognized that consciousness is tied to volition. Since this is already recognized by scientists, this third option would fall back into option two, the presupposition that there are human souls. If people deny volition in favor of naturalism, their argument reverts back to the first option or presupposition which is based on naturalism. If they are not willing to sacrifice volition and moral will as part of their worldview, they are clinging to the essence of option two which grants man moral responsibility and informed consent rights.
I do not deny that sometimes body chemistry has to be immediately corrected for the benefit and comfort of the individual. However, these arguments are leveled against mandatory treatment, and are in favor of informed consent rights.
Many medical practitioners believe in some kind of higher power, or God Almighty, and human souls. However, standards for practice and clinical procedures and protocols have their academic roots in atheism, evolutionary science, and naturalism. What I'm really criticizing is the doctrines inherent in behavioral medicine, not necessarily all the people who are practicing in that field. Many people are well-intending and just follow protocols and procedures. I believe that many people try to work for good from inside the system.
There are many other worldviews to address other than naturalism and Christianity (fatalism, deism, pantheism, finite godism, etc). However, psychiatry has its presuppositions based in naturalism and athiesm. The truthful force of the Christian worldview provides a means to debunk naturalism. Therefore, those are the two presuppositional standpoints which have been addressed here. I simply provided a way to argue for informed consent in psychiatry from the Christian worldview.
I want to add that no one should ever have to have anything forced into or onto their body against their will (notwithstanding police action against suspects in response to obvious criminal offenses, for which handcuffs and all other aspects of detainment suffice. Although, suspects who don't seem dangerous and want to cooperate should be given lighter treatment somehow). "Do you not know that you are a temple of God and that the Spirit of God dwells in you? If any man destroys the temple of God, God will destroy him, for the temple of God is holy, and that is what you are" (1 Corinthians 3:16).
I will not discuss here the subject of tricky living will scenarios, because that is complicated legal territory, and a little off topic.
Comments
Post a Comment