3 ms·

> Throwing someone immediately into a sanitarium for having tuberculosis vs. throwing them in jail after 17 court visits because they wouldn’t stay away from ot

> Throwing someone immediately into a sanitarium for having tuberculosis vs. throwing them in jail after 17 court visits because they wouldn’t stay away from other people is a massive difference. A “massive difference” in many contexts but not for those who oppose mandatory medical treatment. Who else would possibly argue that this is government overreach than people with that belief?

Waterluvian 4y ago
This isn’t about mandatory medical treatment because the medical treatment in this case isn’t mandatory. I would absolutely be against mandatory medical treatment. But that’s not the truth here. It’s the same old chestnut: people who wrongly think their freedoms are more important than everyone else’s freedoms. They are upset at the idea of being confined to their home when they have tuberculosis or covid or whatever. They don’t value the lives of the rest of their community and so they see themselves as victims.
- eduction 4y ago
  The article is clear that this is about mandatory treatment: “Sorenson ordered a civil warrant for her arrest, to be enforced on or after March 3, and again ordered her to jail to undergo involuntary testing and treatment until health officials deem it safe to release her.”
  - Waterluvian 4y ago
    separate from the very long saga leading up to this, I generally share your concern about that. But that does not invalidate everything that came prior. However, what’s the practical solution? What do you think they should do to protect the jail staff and population if she refuses treatment? Maybe we just drop her off on a deserted island? Exaggeration aside, I’m truly curious. How do we protect everyone else’s freedom to be safe and secure from her without impinging upon hers? This is often the point where people start bending reality rather than recognizing the hypocrisy of their beliefs. They’ll start to suggest that covid or tuberculosis isn’t actually that dangerous, or perhaps isn’t real at all, so we aren’t actually faced with this predicament.
    - eduction 4y ago
      I do not have, and have never taken, a position on the order. You yourself have taken a stronger position in your prior comment: “I would absolutely be against mandatory medical treatment.” Does that mean you are now against this order, now that you are aware that it forces medical treatment?
      - Waterluvian 4y ago
        Good question! I’m against mandatory medical treatment. But I’m also pragmatic and recognize that having a belief doesn’t mean that belief must be enforced at all costs. Any predicament that boils down to “one of these parties’ freedoms needs to be impinged” demands flexibility of values. The world isn’t perfect like that. If she refuses to cooperate and find a compromise (like staying away from people if she continues to be a risk to their lives), then regrettably, the least evil option is probably mandatory treatment. But I’m truly eager to find an alternative. Any alternative. As long as it isn’t “just let her hurt people.” P.S. I appreciate this discussion. Please don’t think I’m coming after you— just the argument.
        eduction 4y ago
        > I’m also pragmatic and recognize that having a belief doesn’t mean that belief must be enforced at all costs. But you said two comments ago you were “absolutely” against forced medical treatment. This clearly has softened? I bring this up not to dunk on you but to acknowledge a prior point you made which I think is a strong one: “people start bending reality rather than recognizing the hypocrisy of their beliefs” I hasten to add I’m also not calling you a hypocrite! But I quote that, and in particular the “bending reality” part, because I think this goes both ways, not for just one party in a debate. One lesson from me from Covid was that no one side in a debate has a monopoly on the practice of subordinating hard facts to emotion or prior belief and that we all have to bend over backwards to point out flawed reasoning even when it supports a position we are inclined to like. That was the whole point of my very first post in this thread.
        4y ago

Waterluvian 4y ago

This isn’t about mandatory medical treatment because the medical treatment in this case isn’t mandatory. I would absolutely be against mandatory medical treatment. But that’s not the truth here. It’s the same old chestnut: people who wrongly think their freedoms are more important than everyone else’s freedoms. They are upset at the idea of being confined to their home when they have tuberculosis or covid or whatever. They don’t value the lives of the rest of their community and so they see themselves as victims.

eduction 4y ago
The article is clear that this is about mandatory treatment: “Sorenson ordered a civil warrant for her arrest, to be enforced on or after March 3, and again ordered her to jail to undergo involuntary testing and treatment until health officials deem it safe to release her.”
- Waterluvian 4y ago
  separate from the very long saga leading up to this, I generally share your concern about that. But that does not invalidate everything that came prior. However, what’s the practical solution? What do you think they should do to protect the jail staff and population if she refuses treatment? Maybe we just drop her off on a deserted island? Exaggeration aside, I’m truly curious. How do we protect everyone else’s freedom to be safe and secure from her without impinging upon hers? This is often the point where people start bending reality rather than recognizing the hypocrisy of their beliefs. They’ll start to suggest that covid or tuberculosis isn’t actually that dangerous, or perhaps isn’t real at all, so we aren’t actually faced with this predicament.
  - eduction 4y ago
    I do not have, and have never taken, a position on the order. You yourself have taken a stronger position in your prior comment: “I would absolutely be against mandatory medical treatment.” Does that mean you are now against this order, now that you are aware that it forces medical treatment?
    - Waterluvian 4y ago
      Good question! I’m against mandatory medical treatment. But I’m also pragmatic and recognize that having a belief doesn’t mean that belief must be enforced at all costs. Any predicament that boils down to “one of these parties’ freedoms needs to be impinged” demands flexibility of values. The world isn’t perfect like that. If she refuses to cooperate and find a compromise (like staying away from people if she continues to be a risk to their lives), then regrettably, the least evil option is probably mandatory treatment. But I’m truly eager to find an alternative. Any alternative. As long as it isn’t “just let her hurt people.” P.S. I appreciate this discussion. Please don’t think I’m coming after you— just the argument.
      - eduction 4y ago
        > I’m also pragmatic and recognize that having a belief doesn’t mean that belief must be enforced at all costs. But you said two comments ago you were “absolutely” against forced medical treatment. This clearly has softened? I bring this up not to dunk on you but to acknowledge a prior point you made which I think is a strong one: “people start bending reality rather than recognizing the hypocrisy of their beliefs” I hasten to add I’m also not calling you a hypocrite! But I quote that, and in particular the “bending reality” part, because I think this goes both ways, not for just one party in a debate. One lesson from me from Covid was that no one side in a debate has a monopoly on the practice of subordinating hard facts to emotion or prior belief and that we all have to bend over backwards to point out flawed reasoning even when it supports a position we are inclined to like. That was the whole point of my very first post in this thread.
        4y ago