4 ms·

We were able to work with the local county sheriff, as well as social services, to get him forced into a hospital due to him being a danger to himself. In Ohio,

We were able to work with the local county sheriff, as well as social services, to get him forced into a hospital due to him being a danger to himself. In Ohio, where he was located, this is called a pink-slip law. He was forced to go to a hospital, where he went into a brief 72 hour coma while he was withdrawing from alcohol. From there, he was hospitalized for another 7 days, and then forced to transfer to a physical rehabilitation center, as he was unable to walk under his own power. Once he was at the facility, he was no longer under a required hold. Once he realized this, he promptly left so he could go home and start drinking again. We spoke with lawyers about whether or not I could be granted conservatorship over him, as he went through this detox / early recovery period. Because he hadn't lost his mental faculties in any way, we were advised that a judge was unlikely to provide conservatorship to me, and it would be an expensive and damaging process. Our best bet was to convince him at a personal level, which is what we attempted. Should people be allowed to drink themselves to death? Should families be powerless to help a family member with a disease that makes is so addictive, they can no longer make rational choices in relation to that substance? It's clearly a philosophical question, and it comes down to your views on personal liberty, and whether someone suffering from deep addiction is still capable of making informed decisions. I, personally, believe that conservatorship laws are a reasonable approach to helping people get over the initial hump of detox and then understanding their addiction. I want people to have a fighting chance to come back from the brink, and we lacked the legal right to do so, in this case.

elliotec 7y ago
Interesting, thanks for the insight.
taneq 7y ago
> Should people be allowed to drink themselves to death? Should families be powerless to help a family member with a disease that makes is so addictive, they can no longer make rational choices in relation to that substance? If you're fat and likely to die of heart disease, should your family be allowed to physically restrain you from buying another burger? What about cigarettes, can you lock them up to force them to quit? If you ride too fast should they be able to force you to sell your motorbike? Should they be able to stop you from free-climbing?
- jpmoral 7y ago
  Correct me if I'm wrong but this post reads like the answers are an easy 'no' but doesn't address GPs situation.
  - mythrwy 7y ago
    I think the point was sometimes people make less than optimal choices for themselves which can indirectly affect others but they should have the freedom to make them. Probably we all do this at some level. Hopefully we can encourage each other to do the right thing, but most of us won't at least some of the time. And, sometimes the other party really doesn't know best or understand all the circumstances.
  - frickinLasers 7y ago
    I believe they're similar questions in that they each address an addiction (junk food, nicotine, adrenaline, adrenaline), and for the most part, the only person at risk of death is the addict.
    - cowsandmilk 7y ago
      They are similar, but also quite dissimilar. Withdrawal from cigarettes or junk food don’t send you into a 72 hour coma. Smoking and junk food don’t have the huge impacts to how you treat those around you that being drunk all the time does. Saying these things are similar is trivializing the actual physical and psychological effects of alcoholism.
      - frickinLasers 7y ago
        > Withdrawal from cigarettes or junk food don’t send you into a 72 hour coma. I don't see how this is relevant to the question, unless you want to get into whether their burden on the medical system outweighs their right to do what they want with their bodies (but lung cancer/emphezema, diabetes/heart disease, and traumatic injuries from extreme sports would fall into that category as well). > Smoking and junk food don’t have the huge impacts to how you treat those around you that being drunk all the time does. We don't lock up sober assholes for being assholes either. The question is: where does someone's right to do what their brain makes them want to do end? Individual autonomy is a big deal in a free society, as it should be. When you take away a person's freedom to act, I think you take away part of what makes them human.

elliotec 7y ago

Interesting, thanks for the insight.

taneq 7y ago

> Should people be allowed to drink themselves to death? Should families be powerless to help a family member with a disease that makes is so addictive, they can no longer make rational choices in relation to that substance? If you're fat and likely to die of heart disease, should your family be allowed to physically restrain you from buying another burger? What about cigarettes, can you lock them up to force them to quit? If you ride too fast should they be able to force you to sell your motorbike? Should they be able to stop you from free-climbing?

jpmoral 7y ago
Correct me if I'm wrong but this post reads like the answers are an easy 'no' but doesn't address GPs situation.
- mythrwy 7y ago
  I think the point was sometimes people make less than optimal choices for themselves which can indirectly affect others but they should have the freedom to make them. Probably we all do this at some level. Hopefully we can encourage each other to do the right thing, but most of us won't at least some of the time. And, sometimes the other party really doesn't know best or understand all the circumstances.
- frickinLasers 7y ago
  I believe they're similar questions in that they each address an addiction (junk food, nicotine, adrenaline, adrenaline), and for the most part, the only person at risk of death is the addict.
  - cowsandmilk 7y ago
    They are similar, but also quite dissimilar. Withdrawal from cigarettes or junk food don’t send you into a 72 hour coma. Smoking and junk food don’t have the huge impacts to how you treat those around you that being drunk all the time does. Saying these things are similar is trivializing the actual physical and psychological effects of alcoholism.
    - frickinLasers 7y ago
      > Withdrawal from cigarettes or junk food don’t send you into a 72 hour coma. I don't see how this is relevant to the question, unless you want to get into whether their burden on the medical system outweighs their right to do what they want with their bodies (but lung cancer/emphezema, diabetes/heart disease, and traumatic injuries from extreme sports would fall into that category as well). > Smoking and junk food don’t have the huge impacts to how you treat those around you that being drunk all the time does. We don't lock up sober assholes for being assholes either. The question is: where does someone's right to do what their brain makes them want to do end? Individual autonomy is a big deal in a free society, as it should be. When you take away a person's freedom to act, I think you take away part of what makes them human.