|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Wed Jan 05, 2005 8:50 pm
Well, unlike some diseases of the past, mental instability does not normally exist within a human for long periods of time only to surface at optimal circumstances. It is quite random, and so predicting mental instability is hard. One could test nueral patterns for inconsistancies, but even those can be caused by multiple other factors. Basically, we just take them as we come. And when someone does fall victim, they are taken to a reclaimation fascility, and treated.
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Jan 05, 2005 8:54 pm
*Philosophy classes have prepared Luke for this discussion. He speaks proudly, challengingly, like one of his professors almost.*
Yeah, but how do you know if they're really insane? What if those wild, crazy neural patterns are perfectly natural?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Jan 05, 2005 8:59 pm
:::Her rebutal:::
The nature of your question contradicts itself. It implies that one thing is natural and another is not, while suggesting that there is no naturallity at all.
If naturallity is a devience from the average, then certainly these nueral patterns are not natural. But if naturallity is something the human race has escaped then your question suggests that strange nueral patterns are a return to 'being normal"
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Jan 05, 2005 9:06 pm
*Luke figures he'll nod to that. What she said about covers his argument...*
So, what happens when someone is declared "mentally unstable"? Do they send them to a shrink or just tie them up in a jacket until they straighten themselves out?
((Dammit! I so would love to argue this!!! But Luke's too....Luke *lol*))
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Jan 05, 2005 9:13 pm
((I should so be doing my work, but I was prodded to come look at this. There is no normality, or in this case, naturality, same difference, whatever. What is normal to one person is far from normal to another. I've had this exact arguement before in my A/H class ^_^))
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Jan 05, 2005 9:19 pm
((ah poo...I was hoping you would, Cora needs to have more confirmation that the logic of her time is flawed!))
The treatments vary depending on the level of illness. Most of them are able to attain stability once more, and are kept stable through the use of drugs. This treatment goes as far back as your time I believe, though now it is much more advanced I imagine. The most extreme cases, in which no cure is possible or forseen to be developed in the coming future are extinguished.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Jan 05, 2005 9:23 pm
*Luke repeats, not believing he heard right.*
Extinguished?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Jan 05, 2005 9:27 pm
:::as thought it were completely natural:::
Yes, they are removed from the population. If they cannot contribute socially or economically or biologically then they are extinguished.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Jan 05, 2005 9:28 pm
*Luke puts it in simplier terms.*
So you kill them?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Jan 05, 2005 9:46 pm
:::Cora nods::: it is not something I am personally accepting of, but the reasoning is there.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Jan 05, 2005 9:57 pm
*Luke gets a deep frown on his face.*
What reasoning? You take someone out just because they don't serve your purpose any more? Just because they're too hard to deal with? *says to her forcefully* You can't do that. That's ... People fought for years to stop that, Cora.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Jan 05, 2005 9:58 pm
I don't really like it, but when it comes down to it, what reason is there for them to keep living?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Jan 05, 2005 10:08 pm
*From what he knows of Cora, Luke cannot believe what she's saying. Hell, the antidote she just gave him from her cold is still fresh in his arm, but that's not what's on his mind right now.*
What makes you so sure that it's incurable?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Jan 05, 2005 10:16 pm
You must understand that the developments in medicine and treatment of my time are much more developed than they are in your time. Even so, there is always room for advancement, and we are always seeking it. But those who are beyond reach are studied and we gain understanding from them. If we are not able to create a cure for them within the expected life spans of their immidiate family, or within theirs, there is no other reasonalbe alternative. It is true though, that we cannot be certain that a cure is unknown, but the percent value of misdiagnosis and misunderstanding of treatment are near zero. That, plugged againts resources expended versus their contribution to life itself would lead my society to conclude that it is reasonalbe to omit the individual.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Jan 05, 2005 10:19 pm
*Luke becomes passionate in his arguing.*
Yeah, but doesn't that person have a right to live? That would be like killing someone just because they're mentally retarded, or taking someone out because they have cancer.
They might not be cured, so let's end it before they taint our gene pool?
*Luke almost can't stand it.* That's so ******** cold....
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reply
