16 ms·

> There has to be some kind of middle way where people who are deeply sick can have healthcare even if they are resistant and also heavy guardrails in place to

> There has to be some kind of middle way where people who are deeply sick can have healthcare even if they are resistant and also heavy guardrails in place to prevent them from being abused while they're vulnerable. The only guardrails that work to prevent abuse are community connections and the right to refuse. In clinical treatment, many human rights abuses are normalized to the point where people being abused believe that's just what treatment is without someone outside the system to provide perspective (and usually abuse will continue without someone to advocate alongside the person being abused). It's just an obvious matter of course that people who can't say "no" will become objects to the treatment provider. Without some counteracting force, providers will manipulate people in their care to satisfy their own incentives and convenience. If people don't want treatment, we should ask what's wrong with the treatment, rather than forcing people into it. It's rarely helpful and makes things even harder down the line.

retrac 4y ago
> If people don't want treatment, we should ask what's wrong with the treatment This reasoning works with most illnesses, including most mental health problems. But it sort of falls apart with psychotic illness. A common symptom of schizophrenia is a denial of any illness, or ill-functioning. In extreme cases, an individual may show no appreciation of the fact that e.g. being socially isolated and with no income will probably quickly kill them. I'm usually the advocate for the agency of people -- I do point out the opposite in another post in this thread, that many people with schizophrenia are aware of their illness and impairments, because many are. But many are not. Even with truly perfect treatments with no side effects that completely cleared delusions and clouded thinking, many, because of their illness, would choose not to take such treatment.
- shkkmo 4y ago
  The awareness can also wax and wane within a single individual. A friend of mine has been forcibly hospitalized several times and the trauma inflicted severely impacted his desire to seek treatment during his more aware periods. When I finally got him to reach out to care providers (since as just a friend, there was no way to setup inpatient care as an intermediary) they made it so difficult for him to enroll that no only did that moment of clarity pass without getting treatment, it also burned up whatever status as an ally that I still had with him. So while changes to commitment laws absolutely can be part of a solution, they must be paired with deep introspection into the despicable failures of our mental health system to provide appropriate care. Otherwise we risk inflicting additional trauma that will make managing future crises far more difficult.
  - baremetal 4y ago
    >When I finally got him to reach out to care providers (since as just a friend, there was no way to setup inpatient care as an intermediary) they made it so difficult for him to enroll that no only did that moment of clarity pass without getting treatment, it also burned up whatever status as an ally that I still had with him. That is tragic. There is no ready alternative when health care providers fail.
outside1234 4y ago
These are all problems and we need a better solution that includes some sort of oversight over the care of these folks. But the solution can't be that severely mentally ill people can say NO to treatment and then are allowed to basically threaten anyone on the sidewalk 24/7 and/or camp because they refuse housing. This is just not working and the 98% of the rest of us have had enough. There needs to be a way to get them help, with oversight from someone that advocates for them, but without a mechanism where they can just say no. They are mentally ill and not competent to make these decisions.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- account42 4y ago
  > There needs to be a way to get them help Cool it with the doublespeak. If you don't let them say NO you are helping yourself and not them. This is hardly the first time I have seen calls to "get them help" when really it's all about getting rid of undesirables. > because they refuse housing That too should result in us investingating why they refuse that housing rather than forcing it (or worse) upon them. > They are mentally ill and not competent to make these decisions. And that kind of thought has lead plenty of abuse.
  - l33t233372 4y ago
    > That too should result in us investingating why they refuse that housing We’re talking about people with severe mental illness. They are not able to reason effectively and rationally.
    - habinero 4y ago
      That's flat out not true.
      - l33t233372 4y ago
        I’m not sure what you mean. Not being able to reason effectively is basically the definition of severe mental illness.
throwaway22032 4y ago
In extreme cases mental illness manifests in violent behaviour, suicidal behaviour, etc. Most of us, including those of us with mental illness (which is effectively everyone to some degree), don't want to live in a society in which antisocial individuals are permitted to "refuse" to be treated. Their victims do not have that same privilege.
- bolanyo 4y ago
  How do you know that 'most of us' feel that way? I definitely do want to live in such a society.
  - throwaway22032 4y ago
    The rule of law, and non-elective incarceration for violent behaviour, are about as old as time itself. You can remove the laws if you like, societies will simply begin self-organizing around removing antisocial elements (or removing themselves from the situation e.g. downtown decay).
    - habinero 4y ago
      I just want to point out that we have several people in this thread talking about the blatant tyranny of being asked to wear a small face covering... ...while simultaneously advocating for the state to imprison and forcibly medicate others. It's also interesting that you value "a nice downtown" more than "liberty".
      - throwaway22032 4y ago
        On the one hand, we have a perfectly functioning member of society being forced to wear a mask, when they don't even have a disease, for the sake of overly-anxious individuals. On the other, we have someone who might decide to live in a random place in a tent, shit in the street, swing bricks in socks around on the trains etc. I'm far more worried about the degenerates on my route from the train station than I ever was about coronavirus.
secondcoming 4y ago
> If people don't want treatment, we should ask what's wrong with the treatment, rather than forcing people into it. It's rarely helpful and makes things even harder down the line. This is ridiculous. Some people who are mentally ill cannot make informed decisions for themselves. If the voices in someone's head prevent someone from getting treatment, it's not the treatment that's the problem.
- mixmastamyk 4y ago
  Yes, either these folks are competent to make decisions, or they are not. A significantly binary decision. Deeming them competent to make treatment decisions but not to face consequences for their behavior has been an absolute disaster.
  - shkkmo 4y ago
    > Yes, either these folks are competent to make decisions, or they are not. A significantly binary decision. Except it is not binary. "Competence" is an arbitrary threshold we place upon a spectrum and where people fall on that spectrum can vary significantly over time. > not to face consequences for their behavior has been an absolute disaster. They face lots of consequences, life in poverty on the street is extremely harsh and it punishes bad choices severely.
    - mixmastamyk 4y ago
      The law is reasonably clear in this area, with established precedent and procedures. Used to be followed. Not the consequences I’m referring to, rather law enforcement.
woeirua 4y ago
The problem is that there is no perfect treatment for severe mental illness. We cannot cure it. Many of these drugs have major and serious side effects, which is why so many people stop taking them. So the only question then is what will you do with these people? Do you let them continue to deteriorate under their own agency to the point where they become violent? That's not humane to their (inevitable) victims. Do you commit them involuntarily? That's not humane to the patient themselves. Unfortunately, someone's human rights are going to be trampled in this scenario, the only question is whose.
- throwaway8689 4y ago
  Involuntary admission is not automatically inhumane, but you do need to be admitting people to well-run hospitals and have a system in place to protect everyone from malicious admission. Both of those things cost money.
- kerkeslager 4y ago
  > The problem is that there is no perfect treatment for severe mental illness. We cannot cure it. Many of these drugs have major and serious side effects, which is why so many people stop taking them. > So the only question then is what will you do with these people? Do you let them continue to deteriorate under their own agency to the point where they become violent? That's not humane to their (inevitable) victims. Do you commit them involuntarily? That's not humane to the patient themselves. > Unfortunately, someone's human rights are going to be trampled in this scenario, the only question is whose. It's true that we don't have perfect cures for many mental illnesses, but as a society we aren't even treating mental illnesses close to the best of our abilities. I'm not ready to give up treating mental illnesses and start trampling human rights when we haven't even tried giving people effective and affordable healthcare. There's a narrative that we're trying to help people and they're not accepting help, and that's possibly true in a minority of cases, but in the vast majority of cases our society is just not doing anything for people that could reasonably be expected to work, and then we're blaming them for it.
- mullen 4y ago
  > Do you let them continue to deteriorate under their own agency to the point where they become violent? That's not humane to their (inevitable) victims. Do you commit them involuntarily? That's not humane to the patient themselves. The Law should take care of this person. If someone is violent, then they should have caught the attention of law enforcement and thrown in prison or put into a mental institution because they are violent. The problem is that The Law is not acting on the violent people who are homeless.
VonGuard 4y ago
SF's favorite game is to send ambulances out to a guy sitting on the street, screaming insane things, covered in his own feces and trying to punch people. Ambulance shows, guy says "No!" and so everyone says "Oh, this person is doing just fine, leave them alone." And everyone leaves, and the guy goes back to covering himself in his own filth and shouting at people. Definitely a great outcome for all involved. If the people advocating for the homeless and mentally ill have a better solution than leaving them on the streets to rot, then I would like ot hear it. Because 100% of the solutions proposed in SF amount to "Leave them alone, they are fine." So fucking sick of it. It is VERY clear when someone needs help, but our society would rather let them suffer in the streets than do anything. Anyone who tries to help or suggests getting them off the streets is a fascist. Homeless advocacy in the Bay Area amounts to "Maintain the status quo, do nothing to help. Punish those who try to take back their own homes and streets from people covered in filth and perpetually addicted to drugs and violence." SFFD former captain who was beaten senseless this past week in SF is literally in the hospital while 2 of the 3 people who beat him with a crowbar remain on the streets. Even when these people are violent, we do nothing. KRON4 interviewed one of his attackers on TV! Guy's still in his camp on the streets, still angry and dangerous. Attack is even on camera! We live in a society where those who follow the laws are constantly punished for minor infractions like parking tickets and zoning violations, while people who do not participate in society AND completely flout the laws in every way are not only allowed to do so, there is a huge section of our population that encourages and protects their right to do so. It is supremely infuriating to watch the Bay Area be so completely backwards and so utterly dogmatic as to ignore problems and constantly attack people for not being progressive enough. We literally have conservatives disassembling democracy across this nation, and the Left's favorite game to play is "Can we castigate more progressives for not passing the acid test."
- bolanyo 4y ago
  > If the people advocating for the homeless and mentally ill have a better solution than leaving them on the streets to rot The comment you are replying to put forward exactly such a solution: that treatment should be helpful enough and sufficiently respectful of users' rights, that people who need it don't refuse it.
jschveibinz 4y ago
We just endured a pandemic in which we (100% of Americans) were compelled to comply with public health directives. The disease killed 0.3% of the population. I wore my mask, and a majority felt that compliance was the necessary and humane thing to do. But some-as much as 45% of the adult population-felt very uncomfortable with having to comply, for whatever reason. But the rule was firm, and those who wouldn’t comply were shamed for their obstinance. Over the same period, roughly 0.1% of the population died from drug overdoses, and roughly the same number are homeless with mental illness. As a society, and morally and ethically sound individuals, we have to be consistent about what is best for public health. Dangerous people living in squalor on public streets using dangerous drugs or failing to take the necessary medications to alleviate mental health disease is a public health problem-not an individual rights matter. It’s not fair to the people having to live near them, and it’s not fair to our society.
- robotresearcher 4y ago
  First, I agree that mental health and homelessness are serious public health problems. We didn’t mask and isolate because 0.3% of Americans died. We did it so that only 0.3% of Americans would die. I’m not sure how the response to the drug epidemic and the infectious respiratory pandemic could be ‘consistent’.
  - jschveibinz 4y ago
    Please allow me to clarify. First, it is not clear that wearing masks had much if any of an effect on reducing deaths during the pandemic. The science is not definitive. Isolation was probably a much stronger factor; but again, not necessarily causative. With respect to how the drug epidemic and the pandemic are compared: my point was that a majority of people were compelled to comply in the case of the pandemic for the greater good, so it is not unreasonable to compel a small minority of people to comply for the greater good. In both cases, those who are compelled to comply are theoretically receiving advice and services that are for their own good according to science and common sense. I also recognize that “homelessness” is a catch-all phrase that is abused, and that roughly half of the homeless are not suffering from mental illness or drug addiction. So the solutions to these problems are distinct. My only appeal to those reading this is to consider the big picture and to consider solutions that are best for all of society. This is a democratic approach.
jvanderbot 4y ago
These arguments make logical sense, but fall flat to me, after spending a few years watching severely mentally ill people take over neighborhoods, rob, break in, and assault the people living there. Near my home, a large man lived nearby that began attempting to sexually assault women walking to the gym or nearby shops. It became a running joke, as nobody would do anything about it. I was regularly accosted by clearly mentally ill people who would defecate anywhere and yell at anything. That experience made decide that we're too sympathetic. For an extreme example, look up the echo park protests. Echo park was a great place to take my kids until it was overrun by homeless and bodies started appearing. And in the name of sympathy and such, protestors attempted to prevent the clearing of the park. https://abcnews.go.com/US/police-protesters-clash-sweep-echo-park-homeless-encampment/story?id=76701960 https://abcnews.go.com/US/police-protesters-clash-sweep-echo...
- UncleOxidant 4y ago
  > after spending a few years watching severely mentally ill people take over neighborhoods, rob, break in, and assault the people living there. I've been thinking lately that the modern zombie genre might be influenced by this. Sort of a metaphor for what's happening in a lot of cities.
- PuppyTailWags 4y ago
  You see I feel like I'm some bizarre moderate where I can understand both the people who want Echo park cleared and also the people who are protesting the clearing of Echo park. It's not safe for the rest of the community for them to be there, but neither has the community provided any reasonable other option for them! I've heard of stories where people have tried to get housing only to be told they wouldn't be allowed unless they got rid of their PTSD-specific service animal or some other nonsense that is most definitely illegal but they're fucking homeless dude, where are they going to get any legal rep or otherwise to fight it? But at the same time they literally shouldn't be allowed to collectively endanger the community by accosting others or anything like that. It's a bad situation all around and I think I'm living some kind of crazy town where I sympathize with everyone and think there should be a solution that benefits all parties.
kerkeslager 4y ago
> The only guardrails that work to prevent abuse are community connections and the right to refuse. These aren't the only guardrails that work to prevent abuse, and each has their limitations. Independent oversight and advocacy also work: in family court custody disagreements, the court appoints an advocate for the child, who has access to inspect living arrangements and gather other information to determine if the child is being abused or neglected by one or both parents. Of course these systems have limitations also, and the reality is that ALL these systems ideally would be in place. As usual, the underlying problem is greed. For-profit healthcare means that healthcare providers will cut cost and fight regulation on anything they can get away with, and that means that oversight is lax and independent patient advocacy is absent. Until we stop trusting corporations and assuming that amoral profit-seeking will lead to good results, these problems will not be fixed.
at_a_remove 4y ago
My aunt didn't want treatment because her parents were trying to control her. So much so that she had her daughters up on the roof trying to disconnect the power lines so her parents and her ex-husband couldn't send control messages through the wires. Sometimes people don't want treatment because they're insane.
anon291 4y ago
> If people don't want treatment, we should ask what's wrong with the treatment, rather than forcing people into it. It's rarely helpful and makes things even harder down the line. This statement only works under the assumption that the person is thinking logically. We don't ask those who are unable to exercise reason for their decisions. As an example, my infant broke her finger recently, and needed stitches and bandages and a cast. If it were up to her, she'd take the bandages off and play in the mud. Luckily, she has parents who know better despite her kicking and screaming. If only some adults were so lucky

retrac 4y ago

> If people don't want treatment, we should ask what's wrong with the treatment This reasoning works with most illnesses, including most mental health problems. But it sort of falls apart with psychotic illness. A common symptom of schizophrenia is a denial of any illness, or ill-functioning. In extreme cases, an individual may show no appreciation of the fact that e.g. being socially isolated and with no income will probably quickly kill them. I'm usually the advocate for the agency of people -- I do point out the opposite in another post in this thread, that many people with schizophrenia are aware of their illness and impairments, because many are. But many are not. Even with truly perfect treatments with no side effects that completely cleared delusions and clouded thinking, many, because of their illness, would choose not to take such treatment.

shkkmo 4y ago
The awareness can also wax and wane within a single individual. A friend of mine has been forcibly hospitalized several times and the trauma inflicted severely impacted his desire to seek treatment during his more aware periods. When I finally got him to reach out to care providers (since as just a friend, there was no way to setup inpatient care as an intermediary) they made it so difficult for him to enroll that no only did that moment of clarity pass without getting treatment, it also burned up whatever status as an ally that I still had with him. So while changes to commitment laws absolutely can be part of a solution, they must be paired with deep introspection into the despicable failures of our mental health system to provide appropriate care. Otherwise we risk inflicting additional trauma that will make managing future crises far more difficult.
- baremetal 4y ago
  >When I finally got him to reach out to care providers (since as just a friend, there was no way to setup inpatient care as an intermediary) they made it so difficult for him to enroll that no only did that moment of clarity pass without getting treatment, it also burned up whatever status as an ally that I still had with him. That is tragic. There is no ready alternative when health care providers fail.

outside1234 4y ago

These are all problems and we need a better solution that includes some sort of oversight over the care of these folks. But the solution can't be that severely mentally ill people can say NO to treatment and then are allowed to basically threaten anyone on the sidewalk 24/7 and/or camp because they refuse housing. This is just not working and the 98% of the rest of us have had enough. There needs to be a way to get them help, with oversight from someone that advocates for them, but without a mechanism where they can just say no. They are mentally ill and not competent to make these decisions.

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
account42 4y ago
> There needs to be a way to get them help Cool it with the doublespeak. If you don't let them say NO you are helping yourself and not them. This is hardly the first time I have seen calls to "get them help" when really it's all about getting rid of undesirables. > because they refuse housing That too should result in us investingating why they refuse that housing rather than forcing it (or worse) upon them. > They are mentally ill and not competent to make these decisions. And that kind of thought has lead plenty of abuse.
- l33t233372 4y ago
  > That too should result in us investingating why they refuse that housing We’re talking about people with severe mental illness. They are not able to reason effectively and rationally.
  - habinero 4y ago
    That's flat out not true.
    - l33t233372 4y ago
      I’m not sure what you mean. Not being able to reason effectively is basically the definition of severe mental illness.

throwaway22032 4y ago

In extreme cases mental illness manifests in violent behaviour, suicidal behaviour, etc. Most of us, including those of us with mental illness (which is effectively everyone to some degree), don't want to live in a society in which antisocial individuals are permitted to "refuse" to be treated. Their victims do not have that same privilege.

bolanyo 4y ago
How do you know that 'most of us' feel that way? I definitely do want to live in such a society.
- throwaway22032 4y ago
  The rule of law, and non-elective incarceration for violent behaviour, are about as old as time itself. You can remove the laws if you like, societies will simply begin self-organizing around removing antisocial elements (or removing themselves from the situation e.g. downtown decay).
  - habinero 4y ago
    I just want to point out that we have several people in this thread talking about the blatant tyranny of being asked to wear a small face covering... ...while simultaneously advocating for the state to imprison and forcibly medicate others. It's also interesting that you value "a nice downtown" more than "liberty".
    - throwaway22032 4y ago
      On the one hand, we have a perfectly functioning member of society being forced to wear a mask, when they don't even have a disease, for the sake of overly-anxious individuals. On the other, we have someone who might decide to live in a random place in a tent, shit in the street, swing bricks in socks around on the trains etc. I'm far more worried about the degenerates on my route from the train station than I ever was about coronavirus.

secondcoming 4y ago

> If people don't want treatment, we should ask what's wrong with the treatment, rather than forcing people into it. It's rarely helpful and makes things even harder down the line. This is ridiculous. Some people who are mentally ill cannot make informed decisions for themselves. If the voices in someone's head prevent someone from getting treatment, it's not the treatment that's the problem.

mixmastamyk 4y ago
Yes, either these folks are competent to make decisions, or they are not. A significantly binary decision. Deeming them competent to make treatment decisions but not to face consequences for their behavior has been an absolute disaster.
- shkkmo 4y ago
  > Yes, either these folks are competent to make decisions, or they are not. A significantly binary decision. Except it is not binary. "Competence" is an arbitrary threshold we place upon a spectrum and where people fall on that spectrum can vary significantly over time. > not to face consequences for their behavior has been an absolute disaster. They face lots of consequences, life in poverty on the street is extremely harsh and it punishes bad choices severely.
  - mixmastamyk 4y ago
    The law is reasonably clear in this area, with established precedent and procedures. Used to be followed. Not the consequences I’m referring to, rather law enforcement.

woeirua 4y ago

The problem is that there is no perfect treatment for severe mental illness. We cannot cure it. Many of these drugs have major and serious side effects, which is why so many people stop taking them. So the only question then is what will you do with these people? Do you let them continue to deteriorate under their own agency to the point where they become violent? That's not humane to their (inevitable) victims. Do you commit them involuntarily? That's not humane to the patient themselves. Unfortunately, someone's human rights are going to be trampled in this scenario, the only question is whose.

throwaway8689 4y ago
Involuntary admission is not automatically inhumane, but you do need to be admitting people to well-run hospitals and have a system in place to protect everyone from malicious admission. Both of those things cost money.
kerkeslager 4y ago
> The problem is that there is no perfect treatment for severe mental illness. We cannot cure it. Many of these drugs have major and serious side effects, which is why so many people stop taking them. > So the only question then is what will you do with these people? Do you let them continue to deteriorate under their own agency to the point where they become violent? That's not humane to their (inevitable) victims. Do you commit them involuntarily? That's not humane to the patient themselves. > Unfortunately, someone's human rights are going to be trampled in this scenario, the only question is whose. It's true that we don't have perfect cures for many mental illnesses, but as a society we aren't even treating mental illnesses close to the best of our abilities. I'm not ready to give up treating mental illnesses and start trampling human rights when we haven't even tried giving people effective and affordable healthcare. There's a narrative that we're trying to help people and they're not accepting help, and that's possibly true in a minority of cases, but in the vast majority of cases our society is just not doing anything for people that could reasonably be expected to work, and then we're blaming them for it.
mullen 4y ago
> Do you let them continue to deteriorate under their own agency to the point where they become violent? That's not humane to their (inevitable) victims. Do you commit them involuntarily? That's not humane to the patient themselves. The Law should take care of this person. If someone is violent, then they should have caught the attention of law enforcement and thrown in prison or put into a mental institution because they are violent. The problem is that The Law is not acting on the violent people who are homeless.

VonGuard 4y ago

SF's favorite game is to send ambulances out to a guy sitting on the street, screaming insane things, covered in his own feces and trying to punch people. Ambulance shows, guy says "No!" and so everyone says "Oh, this person is doing just fine, leave them alone." And everyone leaves, and the guy goes back to covering himself in his own filth and shouting at people. Definitely a great outcome for all involved. If the people advocating for the homeless and mentally ill have a better solution than leaving them on the streets to rot, then I would like ot hear it. Because 100% of the solutions proposed in SF amount to "Leave them alone, they are fine." So fucking sick of it. It is VERY clear when someone needs help, but our society would rather let them suffer in the streets than do anything. Anyone who tries to help or suggests getting them off the streets is a fascist. Homeless advocacy in the Bay Area amounts to "Maintain the status quo, do nothing to help. Punish those who try to take back their own homes and streets from people covered in filth and perpetually addicted to drugs and violence." SFFD former captain who was beaten senseless this past week in SF is literally in the hospital while 2 of the 3 people who beat him with a crowbar remain on the streets. Even when these people are violent, we do nothing. KRON4 interviewed one of his attackers on TV! Guy's still in his camp on the streets, still angry and dangerous. Attack is even on camera! We live in a society where those who follow the laws are constantly punished for minor infractions like parking tickets and zoning violations, while people who do not participate in society AND completely flout the laws in every way are not only allowed to do so, there is a huge section of our population that encourages and protects their right to do so. It is supremely infuriating to watch the Bay Area be so completely backwards and so utterly dogmatic as to ignore problems and constantly attack people for not being progressive enough. We literally have conservatives disassembling democracy across this nation, and the Left's favorite game to play is "Can we castigate more progressives for not passing the acid test."

bolanyo 4y ago
> If the people advocating for the homeless and mentally ill have a better solution than leaving them on the streets to rot The comment you are replying to put forward exactly such a solution: that treatment should be helpful enough and sufficiently respectful of users' rights, that people who need it don't refuse it.

jschveibinz 4y ago

We just endured a pandemic in which we (100% of Americans) were compelled to comply with public health directives. The disease killed 0.3% of the population. I wore my mask, and a majority felt that compliance was the necessary and humane thing to do. But some-as much as 45% of the adult population-felt very uncomfortable with having to comply, for whatever reason. But the rule was firm, and those who wouldn’t comply were shamed for their obstinance. Over the same period, roughly 0.1% of the population died from drug overdoses, and roughly the same number are homeless with mental illness. As a society, and morally and ethically sound individuals, we have to be consistent about what is best for public health. Dangerous people living in squalor on public streets using dangerous drugs or failing to take the necessary medications to alleviate mental health disease is a public health problem-not an individual rights matter. It’s not fair to the people having to live near them, and it’s not fair to our society.

robotresearcher 4y ago
First, I agree that mental health and homelessness are serious public health problems. We didn’t mask and isolate because 0.3% of Americans died. We did it so that only 0.3% of Americans would die. I’m not sure how the response to the drug epidemic and the infectious respiratory pandemic could be ‘consistent’.
- jschveibinz 4y ago
  Please allow me to clarify. First, it is not clear that wearing masks had much if any of an effect on reducing deaths during the pandemic. The science is not definitive. Isolation was probably a much stronger factor; but again, not necessarily causative. With respect to how the drug epidemic and the pandemic are compared: my point was that a majority of people were compelled to comply in the case of the pandemic for the greater good, so it is not unreasonable to compel a small minority of people to comply for the greater good. In both cases, those who are compelled to comply are theoretically receiving advice and services that are for their own good according to science and common sense. I also recognize that “homelessness” is a catch-all phrase that is abused, and that roughly half of the homeless are not suffering from mental illness or drug addiction. So the solutions to these problems are distinct. My only appeal to those reading this is to consider the big picture and to consider solutions that are best for all of society. This is a democratic approach.

jvanderbot 4y ago

These arguments make logical sense, but fall flat to me, after spending a few years watching severely mentally ill people take over neighborhoods, rob, break in, and assault the people living there. Near my home, a large man lived nearby that began attempting to sexually assault women walking to the gym or nearby shops. It became a running joke, as nobody would do anything about it. I was regularly accosted by clearly mentally ill people who would defecate anywhere and yell at anything. That experience made decide that we're too sympathetic. For an extreme example, look up the echo park protests. Echo park was a great place to take my kids until it was overrun by homeless and bodies started appearing. And in the name of sympathy and such, protestors attempted to prevent the clearing of the park. https://abcnews.go.com/US/police-protesters-clash-sweep-echo-park-homeless-encampment/story?id=76701960 https://abcnews.go.com/US/police-protesters-clash-sweep-echo...

UncleOxidant 4y ago
> after spending a few years watching severely mentally ill people take over neighborhoods, rob, break in, and assault the people living there. I've been thinking lately that the modern zombie genre might be influenced by this. Sort of a metaphor for what's happening in a lot of cities.
PuppyTailWags 4y ago
You see I feel like I'm some bizarre moderate where I can understand both the people who want Echo park cleared and also the people who are protesting the clearing of Echo park. It's not safe for the rest of the community for them to be there, but neither has the community provided any reasonable other option for them! I've heard of stories where people have tried to get housing only to be told they wouldn't be allowed unless they got rid of their PTSD-specific service animal or some other nonsense that is most definitely illegal but they're fucking homeless dude, where are they going to get any legal rep or otherwise to fight it? But at the same time they literally shouldn't be allowed to collectively endanger the community by accosting others or anything like that. It's a bad situation all around and I think I'm living some kind of crazy town where I sympathize with everyone and think there should be a solution that benefits all parties.

kerkeslager 4y ago

> The only guardrails that work to prevent abuse are community connections and the right to refuse. These aren't the only guardrails that work to prevent abuse, and each has their limitations. Independent oversight and advocacy also work: in family court custody disagreements, the court appoints an advocate for the child, who has access to inspect living arrangements and gather other information to determine if the child is being abused or neglected by one or both parents. Of course these systems have limitations also, and the reality is that ALL these systems ideally would be in place. As usual, the underlying problem is greed. For-profit healthcare means that healthcare providers will cut cost and fight regulation on anything they can get away with, and that means that oversight is lax and independent patient advocacy is absent. Until we stop trusting corporations and assuming that amoral profit-seeking will lead to good results, these problems will not be fixed.

at_a_remove 4y ago

My aunt didn't want treatment because her parents were trying to control her. So much so that she had her daughters up on the roof trying to disconnect the power lines so her parents and her ex-husband couldn't send control messages through the wires. Sometimes people don't want treatment because they're insane.

anon291 4y ago

> If people don't want treatment, we should ask what's wrong with the treatment, rather than forcing people into it. It's rarely helpful and makes things even harder down the line. This statement only works under the assumption that the person is thinking logically. We don't ask those who are unable to exercise reason for their decisions. As an example, my infant broke her finger recently, and needed stitches and bandages and a cast. If it were up to her, she'd take the bandages off and play in the mud. Luckily, she has parents who know better despite her kicking and screaming. If only some adults were so lucky