6 ms·

They persuaded a vulnerable person not to receive medical care. There's no mental dance you can do that will make that ethical to me. He wasn't being arrested o

They persuaded a vulnerable person not to receive medical care. There's no mental dance you can do that will make that ethical to me. He wasn't being arrested or harassed, he was being offered care.

bena 4y ago
That's not what the story says. Why do you say the activists were "persuading" the homeless man, but the EMTs were "offering" care. In the story itself, it says the EMTs were actively treating him. Not offering to treat him, just straight to it. No mention of them even asking if it was ok to treat him. In the story itself, it also says the activists just told the man his options. Nothing in that story indicates they tried to convince him of one option or the other, only that he had them. You're the one doing a waltz here trying to add things to the story as presented.
- mistrial9 4y ago
  In medicine there are always trade-offs, tough situation here -- I have some experience dealing with people on the street in this locale.. What others do not realize is that the actual experience of being arrested for your own good, can do a lot of harm and is certainly dirty and harsh. Overall new guidelines are needed.
- chancePear 4y ago
  You are trying to argue semantics about a person bleeding, walking down the street. People walking down the street bleeding need help not a decision to make.
  - shkkmo 4y ago
    > People walking down the street bleeding need help not a decision to make. As someone who has walked down a street bleeding before, please do not try to take that choice away from me. I have a feeling some of this story is missing. It is being presented to support a specific narrative rather than examined to see what can be learned from it. How bad was the cut? Why was the person resistant ro recieving care? Where responders pressuring a resistant person to accept care or did the activists convince a compliant person to resist? Reality is complicated and the nuance matters in situations like these.
- slibhb 4y ago
  > In the story itself, it says the EMTs were actively treating him. Not offering to treat him, just straight to it. No mention of them even asking if it was ok to treat him. Your attitude mirrors one that the article is criticizing, I think correctly: > What happened to the man at the Safeway, what happened to Dustin Walker—these are parables of a sort of progressive-libertarian nihilism, of the belief that any intervention that has to be imposed on a vulnerable person is so fundamentally flawed and problematic that the best thing to do is nothing at all. Anyone offended by the sight of the suffering is just judging someone who’s having a mental-health episode, and any liberal who argues that the state can and should take control of someone in the throes of drugs and psychosis is basically a Republican. If and when the vulnerable person dies, that was his choice, and in San Francisco we congratulate ourselves on being very accepting of that choice.
  - shkkmo 4y ago
    > the belief that any intervention that has to be imposed on a vulnerable person is so fundamentally flawed and problematic that the best thing to do is nothing at all. That is a strawman argument. I don't know anyone who believes in a ”fundmental flaw” in imposing interventiom. There are with imposing it and one of those risks is that your intervention is not actually helpful. Historically, many of these interventions have beem harmful and intended to prevent society from having to see the suffering rather than eliminating it. The current state of our mental health system (especially the affordable options) is pretty abysmal. If you want support for more imposed mental helthy interventions, you need to work with us to improve treatment options and facilities. I think if treatment options were better, you would find that the need to impose them would diminish.
    - slibhb 4y ago
      How on earth is it a strawman? The post I responded to is making that exact argument, I even quoted it. The temerity of those EMTs to treat a homeless man, probably mentally ill, bleeding in the street, without obtaining his consent! How dare they!
      - 4y ago
- basisword 4y ago
  >> In the story itself, it says the EMTs were actively treating him. Not offering to treat him, just straight to it. No mention of them even asking if it was ok to treat him. You're assuming they hadn't already offered to treat him and he said yes which is the most likely scenario. >> In the story itself, it also says the activists just told the man his options. Nothing in that story indicates they tried to convince him of one option or the other, only that he had them. He's a vulnerable person and they were offering him a bad option. They make the good option (treatment) sound risky just by suggesting he doesn't have to accept it. They did absolutely no good in this case.
  - bena 4y ago
    There's bleeding and there's bleeding. I've walked around bleeding. I've cut myself pretty badly. I've never needed emergency services to tend to any cut I've received. You are using language to color the situation in a way that the only possible solution is the one you want to present. When we don't actually know the details of the event, just what the author presented. Like you keep referring to him as "a vulnerable person". Why? Simply because he's injured? Maybe the wound is superficial. We don't know. All we know is that the author's friend called 911. And the man wound up refusing care. Maybe there was no "good" option or "bad" option here, just options. I think you're hanging on the part of the story where the man winds up dead. Because that's what the author wants you to do, associate his death with his refusal of care in this instance. But his death occurred at a much later time in a different place. The two events are only related by happening to the same guy. And not to mention, you want to rob this man of all of his agency. The implication from you is that the man was not capable of making a rational decision about his own care. Take away this man's housing situation and are you this adamant about forcing care upon him? > You're assuming they hadn't already offered to treat him and he said yes which is the most likely scenario. Complete conjecture and is not supported by the story at all. You don't get to imagine what likely happened, draw conclusions based on that imagined scenario, then declare your conclusions correct. We were told what we were told. I could say that the most likely scenario is that the wound was superficial which is why he refused aid.

They persuaded a vulnerable person not to receive medical care. There's no mental dance you can do that will make that ethical to me. He wasn't being arrested or harassed, he was being offered care.

bena 4y ago

That's not what the story says. Why do you say the activists were "persuading" the homeless man, but the EMTs were "offering" care. In the story itself, it says the EMTs were actively treating him. Not offering to treat him, just straight to it. No mention of them even asking if it was ok to treat him. In the story itself, it also says the activists just told the man his options. Nothing in that story indicates they tried to convince him of one option or the other, only that he had them. You're the one doing a waltz here trying to add things to the story as presented.

mistrial9 4y ago
In medicine there are always trade-offs, tough situation here -- I have some experience dealing with people on the street in this locale.. What others do not realize is that the actual experience of being arrested for your own good, can do a lot of harm and is certainly dirty and harsh. Overall new guidelines are needed.
chancePear 4y ago
You are trying to argue semantics about a person bleeding, walking down the street. People walking down the street bleeding need help not a decision to make.
- shkkmo 4y ago
  > People walking down the street bleeding need help not a decision to make. As someone who has walked down a street bleeding before, please do not try to take that choice away from me. I have a feeling some of this story is missing. It is being presented to support a specific narrative rather than examined to see what can be learned from it. How bad was the cut? Why was the person resistant ro recieving care? Where responders pressuring a resistant person to accept care or did the activists convince a compliant person to resist? Reality is complicated and the nuance matters in situations like these.
slibhb 4y ago
> In the story itself, it says the EMTs were actively treating him. Not offering to treat him, just straight to it. No mention of them even asking if it was ok to treat him. Your attitude mirrors one that the article is criticizing, I think correctly: > What happened to the man at the Safeway, what happened to Dustin Walker—these are parables of a sort of progressive-libertarian nihilism, of the belief that any intervention that has to be imposed on a vulnerable person is so fundamentally flawed and problematic that the best thing to do is nothing at all. Anyone offended by the sight of the suffering is just judging someone who’s having a mental-health episode, and any liberal who argues that the state can and should take control of someone in the throes of drugs and psychosis is basically a Republican. If and when the vulnerable person dies, that was his choice, and in San Francisco we congratulate ourselves on being very accepting of that choice.
- shkkmo 4y ago
  > the belief that any intervention that has to be imposed on a vulnerable person is so fundamentally flawed and problematic that the best thing to do is nothing at all. That is a strawman argument. I don't know anyone who believes in a ”fundmental flaw” in imposing interventiom. There are with imposing it and one of those risks is that your intervention is not actually helpful. Historically, many of these interventions have beem harmful and intended to prevent society from having to see the suffering rather than eliminating it. The current state of our mental health system (especially the affordable options) is pretty abysmal. If you want support for more imposed mental helthy interventions, you need to work with us to improve treatment options and facilities. I think if treatment options were better, you would find that the need to impose them would diminish.
  - slibhb 4y ago
    How on earth is it a strawman? The post I responded to is making that exact argument, I even quoted it. The temerity of those EMTs to treat a homeless man, probably mentally ill, bleeding in the street, without obtaining his consent! How dare they!
    - 4y ago
basisword 4y ago
>> In the story itself, it says the EMTs were actively treating him. Not offering to treat him, just straight to it. No mention of them even asking if it was ok to treat him. You're assuming they hadn't already offered to treat him and he said yes which is the most likely scenario. >> In the story itself, it also says the activists just told the man his options. Nothing in that story indicates they tried to convince him of one option or the other, only that he had them. He's a vulnerable person and they were offering him a bad option. They make the good option (treatment) sound risky just by suggesting he doesn't have to accept it. They did absolutely no good in this case.
- bena 4y ago
  There's bleeding and there's bleeding. I've walked around bleeding. I've cut myself pretty badly. I've never needed emergency services to tend to any cut I've received. You are using language to color the situation in a way that the only possible solution is the one you want to present. When we don't actually know the details of the event, just what the author presented. Like you keep referring to him as "a vulnerable person". Why? Simply because he's injured? Maybe the wound is superficial. We don't know. All we know is that the author's friend called 911. And the man wound up refusing care. Maybe there was no "good" option or "bad" option here, just options. I think you're hanging on the part of the story where the man winds up dead. Because that's what the author wants you to do, associate his death with his refusal of care in this instance. But his death occurred at a much later time in a different place. The two events are only related by happening to the same guy. And not to mention, you want to rob this man of all of his agency. The implication from you is that the man was not capable of making a rational decision about his own care. Take away this man's housing situation and are you this adamant about forcing care upon him? > You're assuming they hadn't already offered to treat him and he said yes which is the most likely scenario. Complete conjecture and is not supported by the story at all. You don't get to imagine what likely happened, draw conclusions based on that imagined scenario, then declare your conclusions correct. We were told what we were told. I could say that the most likely scenario is that the wound was superficial which is why he refused aid.