Who Is Responsible?

Post Reply New Topic

No. I'm asking ...


... does repeating the question in its original form make it any clearer, or do you really need to have every word parsed and defined for you?

But what do YOU think?

Last edited by Fnord on 20 Jan 2014, 10:03 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Why?

I already wrote it. It was the long post. In case you missed it, here it is:

http://www.wrongplanet.net/postp5867026.html#5867026

If i must answer the poll question, then all of the above, to the best of their ability, with the exception of businesses.

The private sector and money grabbers can take a run and jump.

My ideal scenario however doesnt apply to the thread question. What ought to happen is that those most able and most qualified to ensure the welfare of the vulnerable are doing so, under a resource based economy where currency systems do not apply.

Anyone who thinks that the State should take over care of the mentally ill should read this NPR article:

Mentally Ill Are Often Locked Up In Jails That Can't Help.

Under Communism, the mentally ill were more likely to be executed or -- even worse -- experimented upon.

I clicked on family.

If the family can, then they should.

If the family cannot for financial reasons, then the state (and, if applicable, the former employer of the one requiring care) should give them financial support. Charitable organisations, including religious ones, could give further support.

If the family cannot for other reasons, the state (same proviso) should.

I don't mean to be racist when I say this but it seems to me that, only white English families (in England), seem to be the ones who expect the state to pick up the tab when it comes to taking responsibility for their families. I am meaning the elderly here.

I might be wrong, I am only talking from my own personal observations. I have never made a tally chart or done a specific study on the matter.

I think the state should. This does not mean that disability pensions should be used as a means to mask the unemployment, though; they should be used as a last resort after everything else fails.

That's actually a good argument for why the State should take care of the mentally ill. If the State actually had the responsibility to care for them, they would be in appropriate mental health institutions, care homes or assissted living. But instead they are just left to their own devices until they do something that gets them noticed by the police. What could family actually do in cases like this, assuming family even exists and are neither too elderly or mentally ill themselves? A house is not a locked ward and simply being related to somebody does not confer the expertise to know what to do during for example a psychotic break. You could say that the insurance plans of the family should cover hospitalization but many cover it only for a short time. Long term care is beyond the financial means of most people.

Unfortunately, there exists a condition in which families may love their mentally ill members and can't afford to care for them; and where the State has no love for the mentally ill, yet can afford to care for them.

So, I propose that there be government funding for family-style group homes where mentally ill people can be cared for in a "family-like" environment ... provided that the NIMBY crowd can be appeased ...

That is a great idea for all conditions which don't require lockdown. My neighborhood actually does have a family-style group home for people with cognitive disabilities and it blends in excellently and allows the residents to be a part of the community.

Some of my wife's relatives work in such homes, most of which are for those with Down Syndrome. Similarly impaired individuals also reside at those places. The ones I've visited seemed pleasant enough, and the staff members are both VERY patient and VERY firm with the residents. No one was ever "out of line" during my visits, although there was some hand-flapping (yes, some people with Down Syndrome do it too!).

For the schizophrenics ... I'm not sure how they would be handled in such an environment, but I'm certain that their medication would be mandatory and they would be closely monitored.

But for the truly psychopathic -- the remorseless murderers -- there is only one option, which is prison. Oh, you can dress it up all you like, with nice furniture, video games, artwork, and other comfy-cozy accoutrements, but it will still be a prison with the residents behind locked doors and windows with their every move being monitored.

Jesus would want churches to take a lot of responsibility if we are to believe what is written in the Bible It was Jesus's great vision that families of the afflicted be supported by the church, and the person who is afflicted healed by the holy spirit. Sadly the Christians spend way too much time persecuting instead of doing what Jesus truly wanted. He wanted to help anyone suffering.

Since Christians these days spend so much time hating, pretty much ignoring the majority of Jesus's message, it is primarily left up to the state and families.

I went with other, but 'all of the above' would have been a better fit.