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 r

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.