Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnnyB
I don't support just sweeping people off the streets to get them out of the way, but I also think the strict adherence to the sanctity of human rights in situations where people are suffering from addiction actually borders on cruelty. People are quite visibly suffering and dying on the streets every day. What is the value in protecting a person's right to free choice when addiction has already made them unable to choose freely? Is it really more ethical to stand by and watch people spiral into suffering and death to protect an idea of their rights rather than getting involved to try and save their actual life? It's a health issue that a person is very unlikely to solve without direct intervention. It's one of the places where a paternalistic state is more ethical.
|
It's not just about human rights unfortunately. There is enough research that demonstrates that forcing people into treatment more often than not results in relapses, and the relapses tend to be more fatal because the person has lost their previous levels of tolerance but is still doing the same amount of drugs.