Author Topic: Nanny State vs Personal Rights (to drink to death...) (Read 599 times)

kamilyun · « **on:** February 20, 2007, 09:08:31 PM »

Interesting situation that has highlighted for me, the complicated and delicate balance of personal freedom and government intrusion.

My neighbor drinks too much. She has alcohol-induced tachycardia, so her life consists of drinking the equivalent of 20 shots of vodka per day until she calls EMS. She is in the hospital every 3-5 days and passed out on her floor in the meantime. She is over 65 and I must be on some sort of government subsidy b/c I know she hasn't had a full time job in the last 15 years.

It's amazing, the women needs help, she's killing herself. Every trip to the hospital involves a dozen people (EMS, hospital staff, social workers, etc.). But nobody can legally commit her to an alcohol program or force her to stop. But we all end up footing the bill for her actions.

My wife and I are at wit's end b/c seeing a human being crawl up the driveway with a brown paper bag is a trully pathetic sight. I guess it's a free country, but I can't believe anyone really makes a decision to kill themselves slowly and lie in their own filth all day.

Interested to know if anyone has seen a similar situation, how it's handled in other countries/states/counties, etc. I'm in SF California and shocked that with all the "feel good" services available (medicinal marajuana clinics, etc), no one can intervene to help this woman.

lasersailor184 · « **Reply #1 on:** February 20, 2007, 09:25:46 PM »

If someone wants to kill themself, fine. Don't ask me to pay for your problems. Don't ask me to take pity on you. (And for that matter, don't demand either)

I will never feel pity for something someone does to themselves.

Sparks · « **Reply #2 on:** February 21, 2007, 06:50:45 AM »

So people with mental illness should just be left to die then - sort of Darwin style - genetic selection ??
Damned selfish inconsiderate nutjobs ....

So people who get brain damage in a sporting accident - tssh let em rot, they did it to themselves.

Ah the compassion of my fellow human beings ...

I just hope that if mental illness comes knocking on your door Laser, the people round you feel differently.

It's sad that a person can get into that condition and has no family available or willing to help. And then sad that the social services supposedly in place as the safety net have failed. IMHO she should have been sectioned in some way (supervision order - I don't know the mechanisms) after the second or third event.

lasersailor184 · « **Reply #3 on:** February 21, 2007, 08:19:28 AM »

What? Was that supposed to make me feel bad? Change my views forever?

Vote socialist in a few short sentences?

lazs2 · « **Reply #4 on:** February 21, 2007, 08:20:16 AM »

sparks... we have laws to commit people who are insane. I also believe that your country lets old people die when an operation would save them? Do you not limit operations based on age? You should be concerned with your own countries forms of medical barbarism.

Individual rights should be the thing here. If she wishes to drink herself to death then let her.

As for the cost? That is socialism for you. But.. we have so....

I think that even tho it may seem expensive... in the end it is cheaper to let her kill herself with her drinking than if she were to live to a ripe old age and have a myriad of operations for this or that ailment.

Expense should never be a reason to remove individual rights. If you use that criteria then there is almost no human activity that can't be limited or banned... no liberty that is safe.

Who is calling the emergency people? her? If her family cares about her then why aren't they getting her committed?

lazs

Sparks · « **Reply #5 on:** February 21, 2007, 09:40:13 AM »

Quote

sparks... we have laws to commit people who are insane.

So do we but only the absolute end cases are committed - others are treated in the community

Quote

I also believe that your country lets old people die when an operation would save them? Do you not limit operations based on age? You should be concerned with your own countries forms of medical barbarism.

I have absolutely no idea where you get that idea from. I know from personal experience that simply isn't true (grandmother had an op aged 80). Operations are done on the basis of a risk / benefits decision - the same as in the US.

Quote

Individual rights should be the thing here. If she wishes to drink herself to death then let her.

Absolutely agree - if she is in a mental state to make that concious and rational decision. But who has made the assessment that she is mantally sound and knows what she is doing ?? And if it is found that actually she is say schizophrenic not thinking rationally you still think she should just be left ?

Quote

As for the cost? That is socialism for you. But.. we have so....

I think that even tho it may seem expensive... in the end it is cheaper to let her kill herself with her drinking than if she were to live to a ripe old age and have a myriad of operations for this or that ailment.

Expense should never be a reason to remove individual rights. If you use that criteria then there is almost no human activity that can't be limited or banned... no liberty that is safe.

Who raised cost ?? I didn't. But your arguement seems a bit out in this instance - you promote small government and self reliance but then when a woman clearly without insurance or means of self support uses the emergency services repeatedly you say "Expense should never be a reason to remove individual rights" - seems contradictory.

Quote

Who is calling the emergency people? her? If her family cares about her then why aren't they getting her committed?

Finally the real point - where are the family ??

But this raises a point I made in a previous thread. I am no socialist - my standpoint is that if you are in a positon to live your life, pay your way and make your own choices clearly and act on them then you should be self reliant. However what of the people who are mentally ill, physically disabled to the point of being dependant - what then ??
That is where I believe we all have a duty first to our family and then to our community otherwise we are little better than animals.

Individual rights to choose .. yes ...but then you get Alzheimers .... what then ....

Sparks

Maverick · « **Reply #6 on:** February 21, 2007, 12:08:16 PM »

Sparks,
People like that and worse used to be housed in mental hospitals. They were cared for and not released to the streets to fend for themselves. The ACLU filed suit and won based on unlawful incarceration forcing the inmates to be released unless they had been adjudicated in the custody of an institution. The homeless population got imensely larger and unstable by the infusion of mentally unstable folks living on the streets.

People cannot be held against their will unless convicted or adjudicated by a coulrt that they are a clear and present danger to others or themselves. If that woman does not want to be institutionalized she does not have to be as long as she can be seen to have rational faculties.

Yknurd · « **Reply #7 on:** February 21, 2007, 12:51:47 PM »

Break out your camcorder and film it then send it to AFV!

$10,000 could be yours.

lazs2 · « **Reply #8 on:** February 21, 2007, 02:30:24 PM »

sparks... she is not uninsured. I have no idea what other insurance she has but she does have medicare that she has payed for in her life.

As for the expense.. that was really meant for kam.

As for the criteria for medical treatment.. I had read in various places that your country has an age limit on some medical procedures... it is not at all "just like" the U.S. We have no age limits and so far as what I read... we are the only country in the world to not have them. They are not factored in except in the case that the person is too weak for the procedure.

MT is correct in that the nut houses were emptied out by the ACLU so that we could have "free range" nutballs.

I am surprised that so many emergency room visits have not triggered some kind of medical response that would include mental evaluation.

lazs

-Concho- · « **Reply #9 on:** February 21, 2007, 03:08:27 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by lasersailor184
If someone wants to kill themself, fine. Don't ask me to pay for your problems. Don't ask me to take pity on you. (And for that matter, don't demand either)

I will never feel pity for something someone does to themselves.

You old enough to pay taxes yet?

lasersailor184 · « **Reply #10 on:** February 21, 2007, 04:18:49 PM »

I fail to see the point in answering that...

-Concho- · « **Reply #11 on:** February 21, 2007, 04:21:05 PM »

So your not?

lasersailor184 · « **Reply #12 on:** February 21, 2007, 04:21:51 PM »

Who said that?

x0847Marine · « **Reply #13 on:** February 21, 2007, 04:22:19 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Sparks

It's sad that a person can get into that condition and has no family available or willing to help. And then sad that the social services supposedly in place as the safety net have failed. IMHO she should have been sectioned in some way (supervision order - I don't know the mechanisms) after the second or third event.

Unless you know her history, how sad is it really?

Some people just don't do much to help themselves, and those around them get tired of doing it for them. I've found people who end up that pathetic have had numerous opportunities, and lots of past assistance... and screwed it all up by not trying. Family is burned out from the drama and the .gov employees move on to the next manila folder.

-Concho- · « **Reply #14 on:** February 21, 2007, 04:32:12 PM »

No one, was just wondering.

Your posts indicate that you have have a very narrow point of view.

Usually indicates someone who is very young or lead a sheltered life.

Thats all...