= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
TimS comments on Welcome to Less Wrong! (2012) - Less Wrong
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (1430)
Either my model is false or this story is wrong.
Specifically, I can't understand why a coroner would not take actions to facilitate the prosecution of a crime (infanticide is murder), because that is one of the jobs of a coroner.
By contrast, I've heard that coroners are quite wiling to label a death as accidental when they believe it was suicide, because any legal violations are not punishable (suicide is generally illegal, but everyone agrees that prosecution is pointless).
Because he, like some who have posted here, is sympathetic to the baby-killing mothers under certain circumstances and doesn't mind helping them avoid prosecution? I wouldn't judge him, heavens forbid. I'd likely do the opposite in his place, but I respect his position.
How much overlap do you think there is between "influential members of the criminal justice system" and "people who are sympathetic to infanticide"? Especially considering how far from mainstream the infanticide position is.
Labelling a suicide as an accident isn't legally trivial. It is, at least in some cases, an action that favors the interests of the heirs of suicides and disfavors the interests of life insurance companies.
I agree that it isn't legally trivial. But the social consequences of labeling a death as suicide are much more immediate than any financial consequences from labeling a death as accidental. Also, I'm not sure what percentage of the suicidal have life insurance, so I'm not sure how much weight the hypothetical coroner would place on the life insurance issue.
I'm not saying the position is rational or morally correct, but it wouldn't surprise me that an influential person like a coroner held a position vaguely like "screw insurance companies." (>>75%)
By contrast, I would be extremely surprised to learn that a coroner was willing to ignore an infanticide, absent collusion (i.e. bribery) of some kind (<<<1%)
(I don't believe CharlieSheen's anecdote either. I was challenging the suicide point in isolation.)
Say what now? Possibly it's because my background is Jewish, not Christian, but I don't buy that at all.
Normatively, suicide is shameful in modern society. By contrast, I don't think most suicide-victim families (or their social network) are thinking about the life insurance proceeds at the time (within a week?) that the coroner is determining cause of death.
I know I've heard of a survey of coroner in which some substantial percentage (20-50%, sorry don't remember better) of coroners reported that the following had ever occurred in their career: they believed the cause of death of the body they were examining was suicide, but listed the cause as accident.
I can't find that survey in a quick search, but this research result talks about the effect of elected coroners on cause of death determinations. Specifically, elected coroners were slightly less likely to declare suicide as the cause of death.
If it works that way with euthanasia...