Morality of mind control…

[Morrus]

Duties of a Doctor, GMC, I think the 2002 version? I read it through when I qualified in 2003.

I would still be interested in seeing that cite, specifically. You read it 23 years ago? I am not doubting your memory but I'd love to see that definition.

It’s quite lengthy and explains that all drugs are poisons; all medication is potentially harmful if given inappropriately or to excess. When it is given appropriately with the patient’s full informed consent, it is a drug; when it is given without that consent for whatever reason by a doctor, it is a poison and the act of giving it is potentially legally interpretable as assault.

This is the case for any intervention or procedure; surgery (or even defibrillation) without consent is certainly assault and has to be appropriate and ethically and legally defensible (e.g. performed on an unconscious patient without their consent in order to save their life). Such is the established precedent for most such procedures that they would have a hard time suing you even if they survived but didn’t want to have. If they are awake and do not give their consent, even if it would save their life or is otherwise beneficial in your opinion, such as giving a blood transfusion to a Jehovah’s Witness without their consent, it is assault until proven otherwise (so you don’t do it).

It's important to realise that the terms 'assault' and 'poison', as used in this post, aren't in the same category and can't be mixed like that.

Assault is a legal term; poison has, you say, a medical definition (and one I'd still like to see a cite of, because honestly, I'm skeptical).

With respect, though, your medical text doesn't define the English word 'poison' any more than the legal texts I used when I was at Uni did, or the Oxford dictionary does today -- "a substance that can cause harm or death if swallowed, absorbed, or breathed into the body, or as an idea or feeling that is extremely harmful. A substance like arsenic, cyanide, or strychnine is considered a poison because it is harmful in small quantities. Figuratively, "poison" can also refer to something with a corrupting or destructive influence, such as "the poison of racial hatred" or "jealousy poisoned our relationship". No mention of consent; the nature of a poison is contained within itself.

 

[jian]

I would still be interested in seeing that cite, specifically. You read it 23 years ago? I am not doubting your memory but I'd love to see that definition.

It's important to realise that the terms 'assault' and 'poison', as used in this post, aren't in the same category and can't be mixed like that.

Assault is a legal term; poison has, you say, a medical definition (and one I'd still like to see a cite of, because honestly, I'm skeptical).

With respect, though, your medical text doesn't define the English word 'poison' any more than the legal texts I used when I was at Uni did, or the Oxford dictionary does today -- "a substance that can cause harm or death if swallowed, absorbed, or breathed into the body, or as an idea or feeling that is extremely harmful. A substance like arsenic, cyanide, or strychnine is considered a poison because it is harmful in small quantities. Figuratively, "poison" can also refer to something with a corrupting or destructive influence, such as "the poison of racial hatred" or "jealousy poisoned our relationship". No mention of consent; the nature of a poison is contained within itself.

The point is that that definition of poison is of very little use unless it’s situational. All drugs (and so many other things) are poisons. Aspirin, fluoxetine, codeine, metformin, and herceptin are all poisons under that definition. And if you give someone herceptin if they don’t have cancer, causing them to suffer from diarrhoea and heart failure, then you’re poisoning them; if you’re giving them herceptin to treat their breast cancer, and hopefully saving their life by doing so, you are not poisoning them. It is not about the inherent characteristics of the substance.

 

[kermit4karate]

The point is that that definition of poison is of very little use unless it’s situational. All drugs (and so many other things) are poisons. Aspirin, fluoxetine, codeine, metformin, and herceptin are all poisons under that definition. And if you give someone herceptin if they don’t have cancer, causing them to suffer from diarrhoea and heart failure, then you’re poisoning them; if you’re giving them herceptin to treat their breast cancer, and hopefully saving their life by doing so, you are not poisoning them. It is not about the inherent characteristics of the substance.

I'm honestly not even sure what this thread was even about anymore.

I do know that nothing I've read has moved me off my initial belief that mind control in the way it's used and referred to in fantasy RPGs is neither inherently good nor evil. It's situational.

 

[Deset Gled]

I'm honestly not even sure what this thread was even about anymore.

Poison, obviously.

Chemotherapy is Poison. No, Literally. | Illinois Science Council

Is chemotherapy poison? In fact, it is: The earliest class of chemotherapy drugs derived from mustard gas! Learn more about this accidental discovery here.

www.illinoisscience.org

Chemotherapy: The healing poison

In life, there are many things that you may never have thought that you would have to experience but are forced to deal with to move forward.

pennstatehealthnews.org

Fighting cancer with a famous poison

Northwestern chemistry professor Thomas O’Halloran is using nanobins — tiny lipid droplets that can hold cancer-killing compounds like arsenic — to fight cancer without harming healthy cells.

news.northwestern.edu

 

[kermit4karate]

Poison, obviously.

Chemotherapy is Poison. No, Literally. | Illinois Science Council

Is chemotherapy poison? In fact, it is: The earliest class of chemotherapy drugs derived from mustard gas! Learn more about this accidental discovery here.

www.illinoisscience.org

Chemotherapy: The healing poison

In life, there are many things that you may never have thought that you would have to experience but are forced to deal with to move forward.

pennstatehealthnews.org

Fighting cancer with a famous poison

Northwestern chemistry professor Thomas O’Halloran is using nanobins — tiny lipid droplets that can hold cancer-killing compounds like arsenic — to fight cancer without harming healthy cells.

news.northwestern.edu

Thanks for that.

 

[Celebrim]

I'm not sure that's true (and I mean that literally; it might be true, but I'm not certain). Mind control isn't necessary permanent. Death?

Just as a very tame example, suppose your enemy orders you to kill your children and you do? It can get a lot worse than that. It wouldn't be hard for me to imagine and layout scenarios where if you were given a choice you'd choose death over the alternative, if it wasn't for the EnWorld grandma rule. Just think of anything that a person could hold a gun to your head and order you to do something where you would say, "I'd rather die."

 

[bloodtide]

Mind control is a tool, like many things. It really depends on the context.

Mind control to stop an evil person is sure acceptable. It has to be better then killing, and killing is morally acceptable

At the start of The Force Awakens, a group of Stormtroopers kill a village of innocent people. If there was a good guy there, it would have been perfectly morally acceptable to shoot and kill the stormtroopers to stop this. So, it can't be worse to simply Mind Control the stormtroopers to stop.

The NewWho Doctor carries Psychic Paper that does some mind control on people, it might be shady, but the Doctor is often doing good when using it.

Dr. Strange mind controls foes quite often. It is a non violent way to stop and encounter. And very often mind controls people to forget him or magic in general.

Professor X does much the same thing. In the movies he does the "freeze people" mind control, often for good reasons.

In Stargate, there is the Ark of Truth, that can mind control people.....they use it to stop galaxy wide extinction....so, this would be a good use. They do struggle with using it though.

 

[Reynard]

I think posts juxtapositing mind control versus killing are sort of missing the point. The idea isn't "Is mind control more evil.than killing?" The question is "Is mind control, in and of itself, an evil." And while as I stated in my response previously, I think the answer is "It depends on harm done," I still think it is an interesting question to ask.

Like, if we accept that taking autonomy away from a sentient being is "evil" -- and mind control does that by definition -- then the discussion becomes "under what circumstances is that evil act justified?" That, I think, is an inherently more interesting discussion than "Is killing more evil?"

Tangentially:

What if mind control is permanent? That is, whatever rewriting the psychic does creates a lasting inherent change in the target? For example, the PCs use charm person against a guard to let them into the keep.

What if that makes a permanent change to the guards disposition and perception. The guard will never know they were controlled,wil never have guilt or suffer trauma over what they did, and will always believe that they did the right thing by helping the PCs. Where does that sit on the "It's evil" continuum?

 

[jian]

Poison, obviously.

Chemotherapy is Poison. No, Literally. | Illinois Science Council

Is chemotherapy poison? In fact, it is: The earliest class of chemotherapy drugs derived from mustard gas! Learn more about this accidental discovery here.

www.illinoisscience.org

Chemotherapy: The healing poison

In life, there are many things that you may never have thought that you would have to experience but are forced to deal with to move forward.

pennstatehealthnews.org

Fighting cancer with a famous poison

Northwestern chemistry professor Thomas O’Halloran is using nanobins — tiny lipid droplets that can hold cancer-killing compounds like arsenic — to fight cancer without harming healthy cells.

news.northwestern.edu

It’s not what the thread is supposed to be about and I apologise for derailing it there, but one thing that’s always bothered me about older RPG alignment systems is that poison is often seen as inherently evil. I don’t see it, it’s just a tool and means of harming others like any other.

 

[overgeeked]

It’s not what the thread is supposed to be about and I apologise for derailing it there, but one thing that’s always bothered me about older RPG alignment systems is that poison is often seen as inherently evil. I don’t see it, it’s just a tool and means of harming others like any other.

I think that's tied up on old notions of honor. It's honorable to stand and fight. It's not honorable to poison someone. So good people will kill you on the field of battle with a weapon, give you a sporting chance and all that, while evil people will simply poison you.