5 ms·
Not arguing, but I find it somewhat strange that living - often in atrocious squalor - on the streets isn't seen as causing serious harm to oneself? It certainl
by lostmyoldone 8y ago
Not arguing, but I find it somewhat strange that living - often in atrocious squalor - on the streets isn't seen as causing serious harm to oneself?
It certainly isn't harmless, not even close.
Further, If your actions as a semi-coherent group are enough to cause PTSD in library personnel, how can that not be considered as being dangerous to others?
PTSD is no joke, it can easily lead to life long suffering.
With that said. Assuming the constitution really disallows all forms of "closed" psychiatric care and it's not only a convenient interpretation.Then the lack of, or reduction in other kinds of care still points to the actual reasons for effective care being something different than simply an issue of law. It might in addition be a matter of law, but certainly not only a matter of law. If it were then somehow a way to work with/around that would have been found, as always happens. The will of a significant majority has never been stopped by what's written in in any law ever.
There is a fair number of homeless that would voluntarily get treatment/help/support if it was readily available, of high quality, and safe.
But. Care for homeless is almost universally terribly underfunded, and this is clearly a willful act of society.
- luckylion 8y ago> It certainly isn't harmless, not even close. True, but it's usually not an immediate threat, and that's the one where people get hospitalized. Living on the streets certainly isn't good for your health, but it's closer to "smoking, drinking and unhealthy diet" than to "putting a razor to your throat" in terms of immediacy, and it's the latter part where most people agree that the state can and should act against your "will".
- shmageggy 8y agoThe article mentions a scenario in which someone was "throwing books, newspapers and plastic sign holders at us, screaming that he would kill every one of us." This is not about living unhealthily.
- luckylion 8y agoAnd an example like that isn't what "the homeless population" in general does on a daily basis. That's where the state can interfere, but it's the large majority that doesn't snap that live unhealthily but aren't an acute danger to themselves or others.
- greedo 8y agoMy wife works in an urban library. Every day she describes a similar incident. They have multiple guards. At a library...
- luckylion 7y agoYeah, and that's terrible, I'm not saying that it's not happening or that it's not bad. It's just that there are many homeless people that don't act that way, so you can't solve homelessness by institutionalizing people against their will. The vast majority aren't an immediate threat to themselves or others. Some are, and most people are okay with forcing help on them. For the rest, offering help is all you can do, but if they aren't ready to take it, you can't force them.