As a doctor, I think it's my duty of care to at least suggest that supporting, and enabling self destructive actions. Is possibly one of the worst things that you can do for someone.
So it is ok to leave them in their filth, because of perceived motive? Well where are the humanitarians who care about kids in Obama built cages more than the people in their front yard?
Remember when the Right freaked out over the imagined Obama FEMA camps? Well, turns out there were not only imagining it; they were actually planning it themselves.
Will you lit a finger regardless?Will this camp be for profit?
What kind of a doctor would object to a life-saving measure on ideological grounds? Do you also object to putting naloxone kits in high schools?
How in the hell is this a life saving measure? People, whether they're addicted or not, still make their own conscious decision to continue doing something that's harmful to them. Dr's, at least many of them, aren't in the business of harming their patients.
And why should a dr be held accountable for peoples irresponsible actions?
There's this thing called personal responsibility that drug addicts don't care about. When they seek help to get off of drugs, then great. Help them. But if they're continuing down the same path of doing drugs, NO ONE should make it easy or safe for them.
We ought to make it easy for addicts to get the drugs they're addicted to. You know what the problem with drugs is? It's not that some losers are ruining their lives with drugs. The problem is they're stealing from you and me to do it. And sometimes dying on sidewalks and in alleys. Safe injection sites, manned by people with naloxone kits, just makes sense. Makes the problem just a little bit less of a problem.
Or just keep on with what you're doing now. Might start working any day now, right?
Will you lit a finger regardless?
Your opinion is worthless. You literally dont give the first **** about those people or their situation. They can die in the ****ing street for all you care. To you they are just another 'thing' to **** yourself over TRUUUUUUUMMMPPP!!! about.
Great question. Annually we provide meals to on average 45 families for Thanksgiving and Christmas through the organization that I am the director of. I work OCCASIONALLY...not often..at a shelter. I have taken in my wifes family members...including people with chronic illness. I have held the hand of a niece as she made the most important decision of her life and loved her before and after...even when I didnt agree with her decision. BUT...how many homeless people have a I brought into my home?How many have you brought into your own home?
Great question. Annually we provide meals to on average 45 families for Thanksgiving and Christmas through the organization that I am the director of. I work OCCASIONALLY...not often..at a shelter. I have taken in my wifes family members...including people with chronic illness. I have held the hand of a niece as she made the most important decision of her life and loved her before and after...even when I didnt agree with her decision. BUT...how many homeless people have a I brought into my home?
None.
But then...I'm not an idiot leftist ****ting myself because a politician I hate is looking at solutions to solve a humanitarian crisis...now am I?
And of course their room and board will cost 110% of what they're paid.
Did we learn nothing from the poor houses, debtors prisons and company stores?
What kind of a doctor would object to a life-saving measure on ideological grounds? Do you also object to putting naloxone kits in high schools?
The courts in California have ruled that the police can't arrest people for setting up tent camps in public spaces unless there is a place for them to go.
This fulfills the "somewhere to go" requirement. I don't much care if the bums, junkies and meth-heads want to go to these homeless camps. But since they exist it means they can't stay in the park and shoot up where my kids play anymore. Get the F out!
I am suspiscious of poor houses, debtors prisons, forced indenture.
The right only wants to beat behaviors they don't approve of out of people. All stick all the time.
...Maybe you should do some reading on debtor's prisons, poor houses and company towns/stores.
With an emphasis on the reasons these things were implemented and how truly hrrible they turned out to be.
Then get back to me with the smug.
I get the point of the program. But I don't agree that drs should be held accountable for the irresponsible actions of drug users.
Also, places like this sends the message that "it's ok." And its not. There's nothing about drug addiction that's OK.
I am suspiscious of poor houses, debtors prisons, forced indenture.
The right only wants to beat behaviors they don't approve of out of people. All stick all the time.
AND they want the cost to be borne by said misbehavers.
And they want the systems to be for-profit. For efficiencies' sake.
If you can't see the moral hazard then there isn't anything for us to talk about.
Maybe you should do some reading on debtor's prisons, poor houses and company towns/stores.
With an emphasis on the reasons these things were implemented and how truly horrible they turned out to be.
Then get back to me with the smug.
So it is ok to leave them in their filth, because of perceived motive? Well where are the humanitarians who care about kids in Obama built cages more than the people in their front yard?
Then provide them with a safe and secure place to go that doesn't trample their rights and they get effective care in the process.
I support the idea of creating a place for the homeless where they can get food, job training, and treatment but it has to be at no cost to them, they can come and leave at any time with no restrictions and they cannot have rights being taken away in the process.
I've thought about using 40' shipping containers to make individual housing units with a separate cafeteria and medical clinic on-site. I would put a restriction on having guns to cut down on violence. They would not be taken away but kept in a central area and returned when they leave. There would have to be people on-site to prevent the rights/dignity of these people aren't being violated because many of them are mentally ill and cannot protect themselves. We do a horrendous job of caring for the mentally ill in the US, many of which are veterans, and we must do better.
Messages don't matter. The message now is its not okay and it doesn't make any difference.
Did someone say doctors are responsible for drug addiction? Well, maybe in a few rare cases but nobody holds a doctor responsible for the behaviour of drug addicts.
We give junkies methadone and its addictive. Why not just give them heroin? Might even be cheaper. And after all, heroin was invented to cure morphine addiction.
Dr. MengeleWhat kind of a doctor would object to a life-saving measure on ideological grounds? Do you also object to putting naloxone kits in high schools?
You might be surprised at how many americans live in fetid squalor inside of their homes and apartments. But, you don't have to see that. There's a world of difference between being filthy and being caged.
I am suspiscious of poor houses, debtors prisons, forced indenture.
The right only wants to beat behaviors they don't approve of out of people. All stick all the time.
AND they want the cost to be borne by said misbehavers.
And they want the systems to be for-profit. For efficiencies' sake.
If you can't see the moral hazard then there isn't anything for us to talk about.
Maybe you should do some reading on debtor's prisons, poor houses and company towns/stores.
With an emphasis on the reasons these things were implemented and how truly horrible they turned out to be.
Then get back to me with the smug.
a better alternative than forced detention
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?