- Joined
- Oct 14, 2015
- Messages
- 64,295
- Reaction score
- 62,736
- Location
- Massachusetts
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Other
I have to agree with this. by having to go to the doctor or hospital they can get counseling on their drug issues and can be at least offered
help. .
Oh, I see the source of confusion!
Just in: Doctors and hospitals cannot counsel dead people on drug issues.
But they can counsel the ones that don't die. Compare that with the doctors never being able to counsel anyone because they no longer have to go in for a prescription....I think I'd rather them be able to save the ones that they can than not be able to try and save anyone at all because they think they no longer have need of the doctor. Consider it Triage.
I'm not talking about the ones that don't die.
I'm talking about the ones that will die that didn't have to die, but for this policy. The fact that some might luck out anyway and talk to a doctor does not in any way logically justify a policy that pointlessly lets others die in order to teach addicts writ large a moral lesson.
In fact, it is self-contradictory in the extreme, because you actually have no evidence that someone saved by a medication will always make the decision to go back to drugs because they were saved. Not all addicts are Nikki Sixx. Some are like Slash or Duff McKagan, and actually DO sober up after nearly dying. (In fact, I'm fairly sure even Sixx sobered up eventually. And he was saved at least once. How about that?)
The cold-hearted policy you defend denies them that choice, all in the name of teaching some grand moral lesson to addicts in general, who aren't listening to your moral lesson anyway because they're addicts. Or dead.