How would you approach this?

en.

The core problem of psychopathy is that it comes with complete lack of guilt or remorse as well as lack of fear, sadness and profound egocentricity - their condition doesn't cause them any suffering so they don't feel broken and thus, do not generally want to change. Some actually view their lack of empathy as an asset that helps them succeed in life.

Now the smarter and more introspective ones do know that they are different from other human beings and are missing out on a lot of things - these would likely agree to treatment, but what to do with the rest?

Edited July 24Jul 24 by Otto Kretschmer

39 minutes ago, Otto Kretschmer said:

How would you approach this?

From the beginning, by removing environmental influences that might trigger genetic factors. Most parents aren't equipped to deal with parenthood at the level necessary to prevent traumas from turning into psychopathic behavior. We need a much better education system that actively works to improve mental health. We also need better healthcare integrated into the educational system. This is something that needs finesse and time, not a forceful, quick cure.

Forcibly curing an adult of anything is a real battlefield ethically. Who is the judge of when the behavior requires force? Which medical professionals are calling for the use of force?

47 minutes ago, Otto Kretschmer said:

How would you approach this?

en.

The core problem of psychopathy is that it comes with complete lack of guilt or remorse as well as lack of fear, sadness and profound egocentricity - their condition doesn't cause them any suffering so they don't feel broken and thus, do not generally want to change. Some actually view their lack of empathy as an asset that helps them succeed in life.

Now the smarter and more introspective ones do know that they are different from other human beings and are missing out on a lot of things - these would likely agree to treatment, but what to do with the rest?

Must say I rather dislike this "What if the sky were made of concrete? type of question. There is no clinical diagnosis of psychopathy and there are no magic ways to fix it.

So discussing it seems an empty exercise to me.

Just now, exchemist said:

Must say I rather dislike this "What if the sky were made of concrete? type of question. There is no clinical diagnosis of psychopathy and there are no magic ways to fix it.

So discussing it seems an empty exercise to me.

Agreed +1

But my example would be "I am not well versed in this discipline, but I want to dictate the ethics of the way the real experts go about it" type of question.

Simply because the name psychopathy is no longer used in diagnostic textbooks doesn't mean that the specific traits are not present in the population. You may call the Earth a gas giant but you'll never turn it into one.

In DSM-5 here is the diagnostic unit called Antisocial Personality Disorder: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antisocial_personality_disorder#Treatment

In ICD-11 ASPD does not function as an independent diagnostic unit but it's symptoms are covered under Dissociality trait domain under the general diagnosis of Personality Disorder.

So this specific constellation of traits does exist and it is considered maladaptive, it's simply covered under different names.

Edited July 24Jul 24 by Otto Kretschmer

4 minutes ago, studiot said:

Agreed +1

But my example would be "I am not well versed in this discipline, but I want to dictate the ethics of the way the real experts go about it" type of question.

I know what you mean. I gather "What if the sky were made of concrete?" comes from the US military, as an example of a pointless hypothetical scenario with with no useful answer. Its genius lies in the fact that you just feel tired even trying to start thinking about how you would answer it. Very funny, as so many of these military things are.

(There's another great US Army one, in a performance review of a soldier, which simply says: "Got a full six-pack, but kinda lacks the plastic thingy to hold it all together." We've all worked with people like that.)

Edited July 24Jul 24 by exchemist

Just now, exchemist said:

I know what you mean. I gather "What if the sky were made of concrete?" comes from the US military, as an example of a pointless hypothetical scenario with with no useful answer. In fact you just feel tired even trying to start thinking about how you would answer it. Very funny, as so many of these military things are.

(There's another great US Army one, in a performance review of a soldier, which simply says: "Got a full six-pack, but kinda lacks the plastic thingy to hold it all together." We've all worked with people like that.)

Oh.

And there was I thinking that it would cause chicken little a great headache if it fell.

😄

@exchemist @studiot

As I explained in my previous post - what I had in mind was the combination of traits that was once covered under the label named psychopathy, not the literal word "psychopathy". Imagine if I asked "What did Elon Musk just write on Twitter?" and you argued that he didn't write anything because Twitter doesn't exist (since it's now called X). For me this is sophistry.

Edited July 24Jul 24 by Otto Kretschmer

11 minutes ago, Otto Kretschmer said:

@exchemist @studiot

As I explained in my previous post - what I had in mind was the combination of traits that was once covered under the label named psychopathy, not the literal word "psychopathy". Imagine if I asked "What did Elon Musk just write on Twitter?" and you argued that he didn't write anything because Twitter doesn't exist (since it's now called X). For me this is sophistry.

Well against my better judgement I see am being trapped into taking part in this thread after all. 🙂

If there is no defined condition, you have no business deciding to try to treat it - even if a treatment were available, which there isn't.

2 minutes ago, exchemist said:

Well against my better judgement I see am being trapped into taking part in this thread after all. 🙂

If there is no defined condition, you have no business deciding to try to treat it - even if a treatment were available, which there isn't.

But there is a defined condition. It's called Antisocial Personality Disorder in the DSM-5 and is covered under Dissociality personality dimension in the ICD-11. I used "psychopathy" as a thought shortcut, just like some people may still call mild autism "Asperger's" even though it's no longer used in diagnostic textbooks due to having been subsumed into the broader Autism Spectrum Disorder.

What of the above is unclear to you?

Edited July 24Jul 24 by Otto Kretschmer

Just now, Otto Kretschmer said:

@exchemist @studiot

As I explained in my previous post - what I had in mind was the combination of traits that was once covered under the label named psychopathy, not the literal word "psychopathy". Imagine if I asked "What did Elon Musk just write on Twitter?" and you argued that he didn't write anything because Twitter doesn't exist (since it's now called X). For me this is sophistry.

How is that an answer to my comments ?

What I do not understand is you connection to this issue or why you have abandoned answering in your previous thread ?

I wonder if you have any idea at all of what a doctor goes through when treating a patient necessitates damaging them in some way ?

7 minutes ago, studiot said:

How is that an answer to my comments ?

What I do not understand is you connection to this issue or why you have abandoned answering in your previous thread ?

I wonder if you have any idea at all of what a doctor goes through when treating a patient necessitates damaging them in some way ?

Is that always the case? What about the cost to benefit ratio? If you have major depression, take an SSRI and it happens to work fine for you, having sexual dysfunction or some other minor side effects will be a really minor thing compared to feeling like being psychologically in hell 24/7.

Edited July 24Jul 24 by Otto Kretschmer

Just now, Otto Kretschmer said:

Is that always the case? What about the cost to benefit ratio? If you have major depression, take an SSRI and it happens to work fine for you, having sexual dysfunction or some other minor side effects will be a really minor thing compared to feeling like being psychologically in hell 24/7.

Please explain this apparantly unconnected response and answer my questions.

Just now, studiot said:

Please explain this apparantly unconnected response and answer my questions.

You seem to be assuming that we shouldn't treat antisocial people because treating them harms them in some way.

Well, how?

And even if it harms them, don't the benefits outweight the disadvantages massively?

Edited July 24Jul 24 by Otto Kretschmer

Just now, Otto Kretschmer said:

You seem to be assuming that we shouldn't treat antisocial people because treating them harms them in some way.

What about this phrase of mine leads to you think that I assumed anything at all ?

Just now, studiot said:

when treating a patient necessitates damaging them in some way ?

And you still haven't answered my questions.

4 minutes ago, studiot said:

What about this phrase of mine leads to you think that I assumed anything at all ?

And you still haven't answered my questions.

You did not ask any, @Phi for All did. As for who should decide on a forced treatment - I don't know. The title of the thread is "Would it make sense...?" and not "It would make sense...". I was asking a question ecause I genuinely did not know the answer. After some thought I would lean on a cautious "yes" but I would never force my views on any society, I would let others decide.

As for my previous thread - Michael Harrop would be the one opening it but I opened it for him since he was afraid posts of a new user would be treated as spam.

Just now, Otto Kretschmer said:

You did not ask any

Perhaps you should review your command of the English language.

You can usually tell a question by the inquiring phraseology/tone of the words and the question mark at the end.

Just now, studiot said:

What about this phrase of mine leads to you think that I assumed anything at all ?

Alternatively the questioner can phrase the question more politely.

Just now, studiot said:

Please explain this apparantly unconnected response and answer my questions.

So please don't tell me that I haven't asked any questions in my own language.

I read this phrase of yours:

I wonder if you have any idea at all of what a doctor goes through when treating a patient necessitates damaging them in some way ?

And I assumed that you think treating antisocial people harms them.

22 minutes ago, Otto Kretschmer said:

Is that always the case? What about the cost to benefit ratio?

Bioethics tends to try and look beyond simple cost/benefit. We don't quantify the value of human lives - when we do, we get stuff like slavery, prostitution, and revenge killings. Some ASPD behaviors are violent, harm others and therefore the person must be sequestered for public safety. You can't really force a "cure" for a behavior, you can only deal with the behavior (and strive to reduce social conditions that provoke such behaviors). That means in the context of how it affects others. If someone scores high on the Hare Checklist, and is just selfish and doesn't share, then society should not reward that (instead of electing them to political office or top management). If they score high on the HC, and start slaughtering the neighbor's dogs who disturb their beauty sleep, and the teenagers are next on their list, then that's a different situation where criminal justice comes onto play.

2 minutes ago, TheVat said:

Bioethics tends to try and look beyond simple cost/benefit. We don't quantify the value of human lives - when we do, we get stuff like slavery, prostitution, and revenge killings. Some ASPD behaviors are violent, harm others and therefore the person must be sequestered for public safety. You can't really force a "cure" for a behavior, you can only deal with the behavior (and strive to reduce social conditions that provoke such behaviors). That means in the context of how it affects others. If someone scores high on the Hare Checklist, and is just selfish and doesn't share, then society should not reward that (instead of electing them to political office or top management). If they score high on the HC, and start slaughtering the neighbor's dogs who disturb their beauty sleep, and the teenagers are next on their list, then that's a different situation where criminal justice comes onto play.

+1

That's the kind of answer I was hoping for.

1 minute ago, Otto Kretschmer said:

I read this phrase of yours:

And I assumed that you think treating antisocial people harms them.

You're moving the goalposts from "forcibly cure" to "treating" and from "psychopaths" to "antisocial people". In doing so, you created a strawman argument. Please don't do that.

It seems you've gotten an answer, that this issue is too complex for force. Which approach do you favor?

Just now, Phi for All said:

You're moving the goalposts from "forcibly cure" to "treating" and from "psychopaths" to "antisocial people". In doing so, you created a strawman argument. Please don't do that.

It seems you've gotten an answer, that this issue is too complex for force. Which approach do you favor?

The approach outlined by @TheVat is fully sensible and I agree with it.

Just now, studiot said:

How is that an answer to my comments ?

What I do not understand is you connection to this issue or why you have abandoned answering in your previous thread ?

I wonder if you have any idea at all of what a doctor goes through when treating a patient necessitates damaging them in some way ?

I also asked what is your connection to this issue ?

and

About the doctor who would have to implement your scheme.

Both of these had question marks at the end and have not been answered.

In respect of that second question about the doctor, I have in mind a couple of incidents I know of.

In one a doctor had to climb onto the steelwork of the Severn Bridge and cut off a limb from a trapped worker in order to free him.

How do you think that doctor felt about that ?

Secondly someone I was close to underwent compulsory ECT.

Again it 'worked', but destroyed their creativity and turned them into a shell.

Nor were the effects permanent.

So let us discuss the ethics of such actions and the effects. not only on the patient but also the doctor(s).

8 minutes ago, studiot said:

So let us discuss the ethics of such actions and the effects. not only on the patient but also the doctor(s).

No issue with that.

Just now, Otto Kretschmer said:

No issue with that.

Thanks so the issue is much wider than just the patient.

How does society ensure that the 'right' sort of person or persons makes the decision ?

How far should the patient's wishes be considered ?

If the patient's wishes are to be overridden, who will be there to see that the aptient's interests are served ?