> They've got a bunch of people "studying his habits and movements", figuring out where he eats and sleeps, and telling the population not to feed him because i

> They've got a bunch of people "studying his habits and movements", figuring out where he eats and sleeps, and telling the population not to feed him because it's actually bad for him. > People, even other homeless people, are not usually treated this way, but wild animals are. Actually, it sounds to me like scholars doing social science. They gathering facts and analyzing behavior. > At the root of the similarity, I think, is an assumption that Heavy is not capable of deciding what is in his best interest Is this an assumption? Or is it a conclusion, based on evidence: > “I just have this dream that all of a sudden something will snap, and he’ll say, I’d love to have housing,” said Amie Pospisil > Heavy was far from alone on the streets of Times Square in the 1990s, when he began sleeping there frequently in the midst of a roiling mess of drug dealing, prostitution and crime. > The social workers at Common Ground said they have no intention of pressuring Heavy to leave the streets. It sounds like you are saying Heavy is capable of deciding what is in his best interest. If that is the case, then it follows that living on the streets of Times Square is in his best interest, since that is what he decided. Are you really comfortable with this conclusion? The social workers, on the other hand, seem genuinely concerned for him, but they are hesitant to overstep the bounds of human dignity and 'pressure' him, physically or otherwise, to make more prudent decisions. I see little justification for a critique of the social workers, here.