A Question Regarding Competency

Is it proper to give the old man a cigarette?

  • Yes

    Votes: 11 78.6%

  • No

    Votes: 3 21.4%
  • Total voters
    14
Tiassa

Tiassa

Let us not launch the boat ...
Valued Senior Member
Of late I've been getting to know a neighbor of mine, and while the man is absolutely nuts, that's beside the point.

"George" lives with and cares for his aging father, and it is the old man the question is concerned with. Described as suffering dementia and vascular disease (unconfirmed, but his privacy isn't my business, either), the old man is very pleasant, well-humored, and very much wrapped up in whatever moment he happens to find upon himself. But now and then, he'll ask for a cigarette. And on several occasions, I've passed one along to him.

But here's the question: Accepting that he suffers dementia, should I be giving him cigarettes? To the one, he asks. To the other, though, is an issue of competency. That George gives his father a cigarette or beer now and then is not much of an issue; the issue is my own conduct.

I don't think his age really should enter into it, nor the notion of vascular disease. Nor do I really believe that this or that specific cigarette is going to be the end of him. But George is known for leaving the old man alone for a few minutes, or even hours now and then, and what if, in his dementia, the old man burns out the flat? As they haul his charred remains out of the scene, should I feel guilty? Can I even know it was my cigarette? I don't think that point really matters. Is someone no longer capable of signing his own name on a legal document competent to ask for a cigarette?
 
Unless there is a true reason to believe that he'd be in danger by taking that cigarette, and not a remote possibility that is no more likely than many other situations, then no, it is not morally unjustified to give him a cigarette.
 
(Wait'll I get to the topic about "George". I still can't figure out how to phrase it.)

He's aged, so I'm not worried about starting addiction. And the "burn down the flat" does fall into the realm of the remote, but the "vascular disease" is one of the things I still wonder about. It's anybody's right to kill themselves, or so says me, but ... aw, hell, I'll just take comfort in your opinion on this one.
 
Matter of the appearance of dignity: I'm reluctant to refuse certain human respects unless I truly accept the reason. As such, playing it safe suggests to me that I owe him certain respects regardless of any assessment I might make of his competence.

And, to the other, I am also in the process of re-evaluating my position on the treatment of the mentally or psychologically incompetent.
 
tiassa said:
Of late I've been getting to know a neighbor of mine, and while the man is absolutely nuts, that's beside the point.

"George" lives with and cares for his aging father, and it is the old man the question is concerned with. Described as suffering dementia and vascular disease (unconfirmed, but his privacy isn't my business, either), the old man is very pleasant, well-humored, and very much wrapped up in whatever moment he happens to find upon himself. But now and then, he'll ask for a cigarette. And on several occasions, I've passed one along to him.

But here's the question: Accepting that he suffers dementia, should I be giving him cigarettes? To the one, he asks. To the other, though, is an issue of competency. That George gives his father a cigarette or beer now and then is not much of an issue; the issue is my own conduct.

I don't think his age really should enter into it, nor the notion of vascular disease. Nor do I really believe that this or that specific cigarette is going to be the end of him. But George is known for leaving the old man alone for a few minutes, or even hours now and then, and what if, in his dementia, the old man burns out the flat? As they haul his charred remains out of the scene, should I feel guilty? Can I even know it was my cigarette? I don't think that point really matters. Is someone no longer capable of signing his own name on a legal document competent to ask for a cigarette?
Click to expand...

If the man was not sufferring from dementia and could help himself to cigarettes, knowing about his vascualr disease would you give him cigarettes? Or would you refuse to assist with his abuse of his own health knowing he was able to assist this abuse himself.

If your answer is no you would not assist, then your moral dilemma is that you feel he has the 'right' to himself abuse his own health and thus with that right denied due to his dementia you feel compelled to help him.

If your answer is yes you would , because he had made a competant decision himself to aid his own demise and he would regardless of your help or otherwise, then you must do what you would ordinarily do as to do otherwise is to confirm his lack of rights for being incompetant to help himself.

My advice is to do what you would do if he was competant.
 
Last edited:
I don't see the big deal. Just don't give the old fucker any more cigs. Here's a simple equation to clarify things:

No cigs = No burnt house + No contribution to his ruined health.

Just don't give him any more cigs. I mean, what's wrong with people..
 
Or: just don't give him any. And, optionally, call him a cheeky fucker for asking in the first place.
 
Tiassa:

"He's aged, so I'm not worried about starting addiction. And the "burn down the flat" does fall into the realm of the remote, but the "vascular disease" is one of the things I still wonder about. It's anybody's right to kill themselves, or so says me, but ... aw, hell, I'll just take comfort in your opinion on this one."

Vascular disease is neither caused nor exacerbated (greatly) by a cigarette or two. In general, the health impact of smoking is minimal unless seriously and continually pursued. That is to say, no one is harmed by a handful of cigarettes over the span of a few months. Or are you giving him several a day? In the latter case, you might be worried on a health level.
 
Perplexity:

Your provocateur routine designed to depict non-smokers as vacuous morons served better by high-speed impacts with brick walls really doesn't do much other than announce to the rest of us just how desperate you are for attention. What attention you do receive would be more positive if you were to drop the "Idiot Non-Smoker" routine and try something a little more genuine.
 
Since I've poured a pitcher of water over a guest who ignored our well defined "no smoking in the house" rule you may guess which way my vote would go.
 
Perplexity:

"Hand out fags to some old fool on demand and the next thing you know there's a curious six year old kid who expects the same and when you refuse he thinks you are a two faced hypocrite, and he is right; you are."

There is a notion that some things oughn't be indulged in until a certain age. We do not presume it is hypocritcal to have sex with adults and not with children, nor do we allow children to drive. It is an absurd analogy.
 
Long story, short... It's okay to give the guy a cancer stick. If the old fart is insane in the membrane enough to potentially burn down his home then he'll find a way to do it without a cigarette. Shit, he's still got access to matches or a lighter if he's looking for a cig.
 
If it makes the old guy happy then what's the problem? How many pleasures does he have left? How often do you give him a cigarette? Once a day? Twice? It's hardly going to have a statistically significant effect on his lifespan. Even if it does, would you not rather see him die happy than in nicotine withdrawal, the most unbearable withdrawal symptoms of any popular drug?

This poor guy has earned the right to be treated as an elder and forgiven his petty sins. I hope if I'm ever in that condition and one of you drops by you will bring me some chocolate instead of lecturing me on how sensitive I am to the caffeine in it.

His son should be ashamed of himself for treating an old man that way. What does he want him to die of? Boredom? Depression? Some other disease that's going to hit him tomorrow?

At my age I certainly have a different perspective on this than you young whippersnappers.

If you're really worried about him burning down the family home then that's a different story, but I get the impression that you're really not.
 
Perplexity:

"It is not an analogy. It is what happens, and the issue is not the same. Driving and sex are questions of competence. Smoking damages you much the same as it would damage a six year old. It is a heath issue, not a question of competence. An average six year old is competent enough to light a cigarette and inhale. The difference would be that a six year old is more likely to assess the experience for what it is; revoltingly unpleasant."

Whether or not to indulge in certain habits or engage in certain endeavours is conceived, and conceived properly, as a decision to be made only after a certain age and maturity is reached. That is to say, children are generally not capable to indulge in certain acts until they have reached a level where they can decide whether or not they really want to practice it. We don't allow them to dictate the time they go to bed, or whether or not they want to have birthday cake every day for every meal, and various other such things. It doesn't matter if the damage is the same for each, or even the benefit. An 8 year old who could drive would get just as much benefit out of it than anyone who drives, whereas he would get just as much harm from drinking too much.

"Hang your head in shame Prince James, and let us hope that World should never suffer the misfortune of you as a parent. Children learn by example. If they see you doing it they're going to want to do it, sooner or later; either so or to survive for themselves they learn to despise you. That is common sense. "

A child will not "despise" anyone over whether or not they choose to smoke. Smoking is not, despite your almost neurotic obsession with smokers, that bad of a thing. In fact, I say it is a positive thing to smoke, specifically in light of the political despotism of the nanny-state anti-smoking Red Guard. I have recently considered taking up smoking simply to spite such people.
 
Perplexity:

"Why not burn your arms, stab yourself with a pencil and chop your own balls off?'

When they all but outlaw such things and bombard my television screen with wimpering sob stories about how some idiot never read the labels or watched the television for the last thirty years.
 
Perplexity said:

Ad hominem alert!
Click to expand...

Green hat alert! My point is that I'm inclined to handle your ridiculous post as a fellow poster instead of a moderator. Before you go screaming ad hom, take a look at yourself. Your post looked more like a militant pro-smoker trying to discredit anti-smokers than anything else.

As to the rest, were it not for his dementia, I wouldn't care. Vascular disease or not, it would be his choice. Hence the topic title: "A question regarding competency". It is any individual's right to kill themselves or hasten their death; however, I put a lot of weight on competency where the issue demands, and in this case, I'm unsure how to regard the old man's competency.
 
Perplexity said:

Still you miss the original point.

How do you feel if somebody goes off to discuss your competency, behind your back?

Respect.
Click to expand...

And still you have an odd chip on your shoulder. As to the chap in question:

(A) He doesn't know.
(B) He wouldn't care.
(C) Were I to ask him, "Are you competent?" he would shrug and say, "I don't know."
(D) Isn't this tack beside the point?​
 
The complexities of simplicity? Truth is often subtle.

Perplexity said:

1. his competence is his own business, not the business of anybody here. Doctors and other professional are ethically bound not to discuss such an issue openly, so I don't see why a cheaper version should apply now.
Click to expand...

(A) It's my business, if he asks me to endanger his health and should not, for reasons of competency, be doing so.

(B) Doctors certainly discuss case scenarios that are not wholly fiction. Had I included genuine identifying information, point #1 would apply.

2. If he doesn't know he needs to find out, seriously. I suffer from a competence problem with memory issues, and I would much rather that anybody concerned would discuss it with me directly. I would think it helpful.
Click to expand...

Perhaps you've never encountered someone in this state of mind. Memory issues aren't a big deal. Are you allowed to enter into a contract of your own free will? Do you have a guardian who bears power of attorney? Does the state periodically inspect your life because your memory issues make it unlikely that you would complain about, even notice, abuse or poor living conditions? How would your memory issues come up in which your "competence problem" (I don't understand quite what you mean by the term; as I perceive your term and your faculties, we seem to be discussing two separate degrees) becomes the functional burden of others?

3. Nobody here is competent to know anyway; if as suggested, this a matter life or death judgement by hearsay is the wrong way to go about it.
Click to expand...

Given that some might or do object to the particular standard of competence, some do see the terms within a range that can be considered according to the general terminology of the situation.

To the other, a close friend today gave me a response that pretty much cut to the heart of what I was after. It actually stunned me for a moment: "Are you asking if I would give a dying man a cigarette? Of course I would! What the hell's your problem, man?"

In that, I think I found the answer.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top