Would you be in favour of applying this policy to all people displaying behaviours deemed at higher risk of requiring hospital treatment? And who should decide what constitutes risky activity?
I agree I think smokers, drinkers, drug-takers should also fall under this. If they choose not to take advice about reducing smoking, drinking, taking drugs then they should be on the hook for medical treatment.
Sure, but I wouldn't implement something like that as a policy, but as a guideline. So when someone really goes overboard into one or the other directionyou can point them to the guideline, but there is still some freedom in deciding on the spot.
This alarms me considerably, as would anything that forces someone to do anything they do not want to do, whether it's for their own good or not. That said, however, I think there must be a system to treat those who are dangerous to themselves, or to society. I see the problem but once you go down that pathway where does it stop?
Government does not back down, and I am deeply concerned that a system that mandates the treatment of someone for a disease could expand that definition, far beyond what anyone intended.
Many times people engage in behaviour they know is bad for them. See smoking, alcohol etc. Regulating the entities which makes that bad behaviour possible is a reasonable solution.
People make a lot of decisions that increase their hospitalization odds. Drinking too much, eating too much, smoking too much, texting while driving, skateboarding...
How are you going to draw the line exactly? It's also contrary to the goal of healthcare being a human right.
We should assert every person's right to engage in behavior where there is risk of bringing harm upon yourself, because every behavior carries this risk, and the presence of risk should not disqualify an endeavor from taking place at all.
That would be fine and dandy if the decision to engage in risky behaviour only affects the individuals and businesses making them. However, this is not the case in reality.
People should choose their own risk management decisions, not have a government forcibly do it for them. If you're concerned, you can choose to restrict yourself, but you have no business restricting me and any number of people that mutually wish to interact with me.
Would you advocate for government mandates on everyone else for your sole benefit? Or do you feel that you're a representative sample of the high-risk group?
Sure, as long as people who eat excessively, smoke cigarettes, drink alcohol, etc. also sign away their healthcare. Why should we enable their bad decisions?
If you follow this reasoning, then you must also beleive that we should stigmatise people with other life choices that fill hospitals? Stigmatising obese people, people who drink alcohol, people who do extreme sports, people who have children late in life. Where does it end?
I agree we should be realistic and truthful about consequences for our decisions, but I do not think stigma will help improve the situation. It is more likely to lead to resentment, and polarisation.
I disagree. The steps to avoid requiring it are well understood.
If people want to indulge in "risky" behaviour, I have no problem with that. I just don't want to pay for it out of my taxes. It's like someone who makes a habit of jumping out of aeroplanes complaining that the government won't pay for his parachutes.
Rules are not rules when a person cannot not break them because of no control over the events in their life and their genetics leading them to break these rules.
I'm not saying it's fair that we don't allow people to be free to act upon what is bad. I'm saying the system needs to be designed to be a rehabilitation modal and not a punishment modal because it's dehumanizing, amoral, and unethical to punish a person who is forced into the circumstances. The punishment modal doesn't help fix the problem and keeps a system from evolving to where people can be fixed like illnesses in the healthcare system.
This has always struck me as one of the stronger arguments against the idea of public healthcare, which otherwise seems like a good idea. I feel quite certain that this tool of social control would be used against me, to dissuade me from engaging in some of the dangerous activities which give me great pleasure, and am therefore extremely reluctant to accept the argument that this is a legitimate use of power against other dangerous activities I don't happen to prefer.
A counterargument could be that engaging in certain reckless behaviors will require paying higher insurance or taxes to cover the inevitable permanent disabilities. Much like smoking premiums.
So wait - you're saying it's ok to engage in risky behaviour - as long as it doesn't result in maiming/killing somebody?
Surely you can see that's a recipe for disaster?
People are very bad at judging risks - and everybody things they're cleverer/more careful/better than the average.
That's exactly why no government that I'm aware of has ever enacted what you dscribed.
Ok - so you make it that driving whilst drunk is OK - and you will only be charged if you kill/maim somebody. You will soon get a whole bunch of young 20 year old males, who think they are invincible (or that they can hold their liquor like Captain America) who end up destroying families in completely preventable MVAs.
Everybody thinks they're a "better driver than the average" - or that "their reflexes are really good". Unfortunately, the average is exactly that - the average.
Sure, according to you - you can now charge them after having killed a mum and her kid walking across the road - but what about the fact that you've essentially encouraged this behaviour, and raised the probability of such things happening?
Similar logic applies to any risk taking behaviour - yes, there are certainly grey areas - but there's a reason handguns are a restricted item and not anybody can buy them at any corner store. Having a gun in and of itself doesn't "harm somebody", as you say - but having more handguns distributed among the population, without any attempt to reduce the risk (e.g. background checks, safety checks, licensing checks) will increase the risk that something bad will happen.
Likewise drugs are a controlled item.
And with public health directives like this - the aim is to force people to take sensible precautions to protect those vulnerable among the population. I hate to say this, but people are sometimes selfish and only think of themselves (we all do this). So sometime you need somebody to look out for society as a whole.
Perhaps I didn't phrase it properly. I meant, "the concept that we should be able to choose the amount of risk we want to expose ourselves in". Which is generally accepted as a personal right, based on the premise that we, and nobody else, owns our body. But every now and then we see some laws that seem to break that (such as in this case). If we didn't accept this principle, then would have to agree to also punish suicide attempts, or a number of other things that would sound absurd.
Yeah, I believe that the key point here is that regulations should prevent "harm" to others, not "self-harm". And as far as I know, that's how it goes most of the time.
reply