Why save people overdosing on meth

[Broomstick]

@UCBearcats

At some point the ethical thing is to allow people to pass on if they are injured or ill beyond a certain point.if someone keeps using and oding then they are demonstrating they do not wish to be healed.

I used to work at a clinic that treated addicts. Sometimes it takes 4 or 5 trips through rehab before it “sticks” and they clean up long term. Sometimes someone is clean and sober for 10 years then relapses and have to start over, although it’s not unusual for them to cycle through a bit quicker in that instance.

And, frankly, I think there are some people where the kindest thing would be palliative care rather than trying to force a cure on someone, but that should be a last and not a first resort.

To compare with another condition - my father-in-law went three rounds with cancer. If he had just given up with the first round he would have lost out on about 40 years of life, most of which were cancer-free and pretty good. Round three, yeah, it was clearly terminal. Likewise, we should treat a drug or alcohol addiction or mental illness multiple rounds if necessary so we can be sure we really have tried to salvage the situation before giving up.

[Broomstick]

@Chihuahua

If someone gets sick, they deserve help. If someone deliberately makes themselves sick, they do not.

So…

We shouldn’t treat obese people with Type II diabetes, we should just let them go blind and have their feet drop off.

We shouldn’t treat people with heart disease who are overweight and won’t give up fatty food or exercise.

We shouldn’t treat smokers who get lung cancer, no, not even painkillers because they did it to themselves.

If you’re in a car accident and get hurt no treatment for you if you were going even 1 mile an hour over the speed limit, because that’s breaking the law and society can’t afford to waste resources on criminals.

How far do you want to take this?

[Johnny_L.A]

@UCBearcats

At some point the ethical thing is to allow people to pass on if they are injured or ill beyond a certain point.if someone keeps using and oding then they are demonstrating they do not wish to be healed.

Wat about poor people? They consume taxpayers’ money and are a drain on society. By being poor, they are demonstrating that they do not wish to be in a position to provide themselves healthcare.

[nearwildheaven]

@Miller

Type II diabetes is also generally 100% the result of willful and deliberate decisions made by the patient. So is a lot of heart disease, and many cancers. Do these people also get the “fuck 'em, let 'em die” approach? If not, why not?

And then there’s the question of mental illness. A lot of substance abusers fall into it because of pre-exisiting mental issues. Do we have the same lack of care about the fate of the guy who started using heroin because growing up in the suburbs is really boring, as we do the guy who started using heroin because it was the only way he could figure out to make the voices in his head shut up? And if the latter case maybe does deserve some sympathy and medical care, how do we determine which level of compassion to apply when the guy’s non-responsive on a gurney in ER?

Bipolar disorder and substance abuse are notorious bedfellows, and it’s not unusual for one to be diagnosed while the person is being treated for the other. And people with schizophrenia are often heavy smokers because tobacco can reduce the severity of their hallucinations. There’s a lot of research being done into this.

As for diabetes, there’s a lot of that with the ones who are chronically noncompliant. Not just Type 2’s either; every hospital I’ve ever worked with had Type 1 patients who pretty much had an ICU bay reserved for them, because they wouldn’t take care of themselves (and generally lied about it) and nearly lived there. There is actually a psychotherapist in the St. Louis area who specializes in treating noncompliant diabetics, which IMNSHO is a total exercise in futility. I know diabetes is a terrible disease and its treatment can be very unpleasant, but so can its complications, which come on much sooner and more severely if people don’t take care of themselves.

[IvoryTowerDenizen]

Let’s fully fund mental health and addiction services and see how many ODs were having then before we talk about refusing care.

[elbows]

What about skiers? Why are they pursuing such a dangerous activity anyway? Mountaineers? What about football and hockey players? Surely they all count as self inflicted?

[UCBearcats]

So now we are to the point where every person should be fully treat 100% cradle to grave for every issue they have without regard to prognosis or costs?

[UCBearcats]

@elbows

What about skiers? Why are they pursuing such a dangerous activity anyway? Mountaineers? What about football and hockey players? Surely they all count as self inflicted?

Honestly anyone who pursues those type of activities should wave their right for government or third party payer healthcare.

[Fear_Itself]

@UCBearcats

So now we are to the point where every person should be fully treat 100% cradle to grave for every issue they have without regard to prognosis or costs?

Certainly without regard to moral judgement.

[Leo_Krupe]

@UCBearcats

So now we are to the point where every person should be fully treat 100% cradle to grave for every issue they have without regard to prognosis or costs?

Yes. And part of that treatment is called “education” to prevent issues.

[Superdude]

@nearwildheaven

I kinda sorta feel that way about heroin. Whenever I hear about someone who OD’d on it, I’m torn between thinking that their families are devastated (maybe, if they aren’t estranged) and that they spared society and everyone who ever knew them a lot of heartbreak.

Some medical ethicists have discussed whether people who blow themselves up in meth lab explosions should even get any treatment other than comfort care. :eek: There are burn units that have had to close because the entire hospital was in danger of bankruptcy just from all the uninsured meth cooks that they have had to treat.

I can’t be the only person who thinks some people start using (in particular) heroin because they think addiction is cool. :dubious:

Your comment about burns made me think of Heather Raybon, who was severely burned on her face in a meth lab explosion (WARNING: THE LINK ABOVE CONTAINS SOME PICTURES THAT MAY BE DISTURBING TO SOME).

Why save them? My now ex-wife was a drug addict. I had to go pick her up at a crack house once because her brother-in-law took her to the deal, and then told her that she was the payment. He said he’d be back in a few hours to pick her up, after she slept with all the guys present.

Why save her? Because she was my wife. And someone’s daughter. And an aunt. And a sister. And because she’s a human being, even if she was fucked up on drugs. And because we all have a blind spot to something that we do. And we as a society are stronger than the sum of our parts. And no one deserves to die like that.

Mostly, though, we do it because we’re decent people, and everyone deserves a chance to turn themselves around.

[dropzone]

Where is the line between a solution being practical and being fascist? Or even National Socialist? Because you know who else was against wasting state resources helping the mentally ill?

[kambuckta]

@Superdude

Mostly, though, we do it because we’re decent people, and everyone deserves a chance to turn themselves around.

It’s this. In a civilized world, as others have mentioned, we do stuff to help others who are the least equipped to help themselves. It’s part of the human condition that we can empathise with others (well most of us can) and we favour government policies that promote such attitudes over the more callous, 'let ‘em rot’.

Because none of us know what is around the corner. Do we really want health policies that would choose to ignore some in favour of others? What if gain has been mentioned) we start with addictions, but move onto illnesses/injuries that could have been reasonably foreseen by a reasonable person before they embarked upon that activity…diabetes, skydiving, rockclimbing yada yada.

And then driving a car is an inherently dangerous activity…in fact, living in suburbia as a bloody pedestrian has its own dangers.

It’s a bad idea, from an ethical, social and practical standpoint.

[DagNation]

There are some assumption behind the suggestion that there are some people (tweekers) who do not “deserve” emergency health care:

• If something is illegal, than it is by definition immoral.
• Failure to be 100% self aware and to make only safe choices is also immoral.
• Real life issues are no excuse.
• A moral failing that leads to (or is tangential to) a near death situation means that there is no reason to spend resources saving the person (possibly judged in the moment by whoever is there), regardless of the actual amount of resources needed, the real chance of recovery, or the level of moral failure.
• That a persons lifetime income (or fame) is the only gauge of the value of that life.
• That there is an urgent need to reduce the number of people treated at emergency rooms, and the only option is to NOT treat a segment of bad people.

Those are all problems that are not “real” in my opinion, or are not directly related to the “problem” (the supposed need to reduce ER expenses and other resources used on evil lying thieves)

As to the question of “why help?” Because we can.
Chihuahua and USbearcats:
A person who is suicidal, or similarly irresponsible, is not well. If there is not something indicating reasonable euthanasia, then the person needs to be treated as though they are not able to take proper care of themselves, like a child (at least in the short term as in an ER situation).

Chihuahua:
What life choices are OK, and in the case that they lead to an ER visit, would you approve of? I have relatives that were driving a truck with a camper, that rolled on the freeway. Should they have been refused medical service because they were diving 2 miles over the speed limit, or because they were traveling on a busy day, or that they took the short route instead of the longer route that had different risks? Should they be refused service because they were driving what I call a “death trap”, when they could have just driven the car and rented a motel room?
[unavoidable snark] Now that I think about it, those bastards deserved to DIE!!! Who gave them the right to take all those risks, tie up traffic, make nurses and doctors work on Thanksgiving weekend, and mess up my whole dinner?!?!?![\unavoidable snark]

casdave:
I agree that the cost of dealing with overdoses in a prison system are way too high. [deleted long hijack about how making drugs illegal causes a lot of the problems around drug misuse]

Nearwildheaven:
People always think that they will be the one who stays in control, and will not get addicted. Nobody says “hey, I’m going to make myself a slave to a chemical, so I can be a useless drag on society”.

@UCBearcats

So now we are to the point where every person should be fully treat 100% cradle to grave for every issue they have without regard to prognosis or costs?

That is a different debate - here we are talking about people who present at the ER with problems caused by proximate overuse of illegal street sourced amphetamines, and similar cases. Your question invites discussion of maximum outcome for most people at efficient cost, preventative efforts, and looking at the high costs involved in certain types of treatment vs. the statistical likelihood for extended years of healthy living. This thread is “hey look, a tweeker OD’d, Lets judge him instead of treating him, he is prolly a total looser anyway”

[Johnny_L.A]

@dropzone

Because you know who else was against wasting state resources helping the mentally ill?

By ‘help’, do you mean sterilization and euthenasia?

[Mtgman]

UCBearcats what you’ve done here is commit the Fundamental Attribution Error. Basically you’ve put forth the idea that poor choices are a reflection of a fundamental deficiency in a person rather than a result of the situation. That’s why you’re willing to write off the whole person(literally sentencing them to death) over a decision which doesn’t have to have life or death consequences.

Addiction is defined as a disease by most medical associations. Many addicts recover and go on to lead productive lives. Deaths from prescription and illicit drug overdoses doesn’t crack the top ten causes of death in the US, although Heroin has seen enormous spikes recently.

The Fundamental Attribution Error is saying “bad decision = bad person.” People are more complicated than that.

Enjoy,
Steven

[elbows]

Our compassion is triggered by their suffering. Compassion is/ and should remain separate from judgement and perceived worthiness.

And we exercise compassion because of who we are, not who the sufferer is.

[DWMarch]

@UCBearcats

Unfortunately, I don’t qualify for social services and free government programs.

Unfortunately? Are you calling for the deaths of your fellow human beings so that you can get some of that government cheese yourself?

[Blalron]

The Governor of Maine seems to agree with UCBearcats:

Gov. Paul LePage vetoed a bill Wednesday that would allow pharmacists to dispense an anti-overdose drug without a prescription, saying that allowing addicts to keep naloxone on hand “serves only to perpetuate the cycle of addiction.”

[Ike_Witt]

@Blalron

The Governor of Maine seems to agree with UCBearcats:

Shifty and Lefty their ilk were just going to take it all anyway.