4 ms·
> 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
by 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 agoHow 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!
- shkkmo 4y agoI don't see any such argument, just a commentor questioning you reading far more into the presented facts than warranted. I see zero content in that comment that could even be construed as arguing for the statment I quoted and called out as a strawman. > The temerity of those EMTs to treat a homeless man, probably mentally ill, bleeding in the street, without obtaining his consent! Obtaining consent is literally part of the job and those EMTs absolutely have been trained in how to do it and when they don't have to. The borders can be complicated and aren't always drawn correctly IMHO, but that doesn't mean that the requirement to obtain consent before treating someone should be removed.
- slibhb 4y agoYou're making the exact argument that you apparently "don't see".
- shkkmo 4y agoI think you have a problem with understanding any kind of nuance. "There are sometimes you should get consent before treatment and sometimes you don't need it" != "treatment without consent is fundamentally flawed"