On the one hand, folks who probs need help will hopefully get it.
On the other hand?
,…Who exactly are they cleaning the streets for?
I sure could have used this when I was homeless. Would have been better than how I was living.
Homeless or not they should have the right to refuse. Forcing the mentally ill to take medicine just makes the non mentally ill feel better.
Being forced to take meds earlier would have saved me some unnecessary suffering.
This seems like a good idea. Whenever I visit a US city, usually I will see multitudes of “homeless” people that appear to be sleeping on sidewalks and suffering. I wouldn’t want anyone to live like that. I wish there was something I could do to help, but I’m not rich, and it’s up to local/city governments to solve the problem. I’d rather know they’re given option for shelter and health. Some of the things I’ve seen, just as a bystander, I don’t even want to describe. There’s possibility that some of them want to live like that or fake being homeless to get money for drugs/alcohol. I saw that on this real-life TV show.
This is some way a good idea , but improperly done. Not all are mentally ill living in the subway . some are criminals.
I wonder if they will have the beds and specialized staff to do so. It takes a lot of work to get people’s life back on track (and money as well).
The idea is to crack down on crime and homelessness and to treat those who are sick. I have mixed feelings on that. On the one hand it’s better than not having enough beds for the severely mentally ill. On the other there’s always the fear that the functionally mentally ill might be put in the same boat. It does not surprise me that this is happening due to the stigma we face, but one size does not fit all.
This is my fear too.
I have mixed feelings on this, I don’t know what the right answer is. I don’t want to go too far in either direction.
Really, really wary of this. In the article it states that the city has not set clear guidelines and that involuntary hospitalisation will be enforced on a case-by-case basis. Specifically, someone does not have to be actively violent or harmful to others or themselves in order to be forcibly hospitalised.
Hmmm. So first responders and police officers as individuals - with their individual biases - don’t actually have to explain why they’ve had someone institutionalised. They get to decide. They also get to decide whether someone is homeless - doesn’t matter if the person gets to the hospital and informs staff they’re not homeless, they’ve already been admitted and have already gone through this trauma.
This can’t possibly go wrong. Certainly doesn’t reflect NY’s growing hostility towards its homeless population while vaguely mentioning they “need more beds” and refusing to engage when civil rights orgs ask why these resources aren’t being put towards… getting more beds? Secure housing with medical staff? Literally anything but shoving people into the already-overflowing hospital and prison system???
I dunno man. It just feels so messed up to read about this mayor trying so hard to convince everyone that this is a good solution with homeless people’s health and safety in mind, when in the middle of the article there’s a link to a story about another tent city being raided and destroyed. Tent cities are homes and communities too, however flawed and unstable; people would not live in them if they had another option, but even these homes are taken from them.
It sucks. I hope against hope that this helps people more than it harms them but I honestly don’t believe it will.
Yea, but tent cities are soooo ugly and dirty. Plus, they’re not paying rent over there and doing their part.
And nobody wants to see an unkept destitute person pissing on the sidewalk while talking to themselves or sleeping in a doorway of some fancy high-rise where professional people call home.
So naturally, the best answer is “let’s ‘help’ the poors,” which will prove difficult if there is no social infrastructure (ie: health and wellness programs, housing, basic support networks) to keep this project from becoming simply another revolving door.
It’s an “out of sight, out of mind” type of temporary solution to what will become a permanent situation if metropolises such as NYC and other locales don’t implement the proper avenues to help the mentally ill and homeless reach housing and health stability.
My two cents, anyways.
Maybe the plan is to bully them out of the city.
But I hope not.
I really hope that’s not the case.
However, there are some red flags afoot when it’s literally the rounding up and forced hospitalization of a marginalized population.
Screams bad news, to be honest.
Its the opposite for me. I was forced hospitalized when I was fifteen because I was raped but did not remember. He works for the same people that will put microchips in the homeless and others. This othering is political not compassionate. You think censorship is not political, you must be blind.
I think you missed a few doses of your meds. You’re sounding a bit whackdoodley.
Give the homeless some prozac pills, take away their rights to smoke weed and ride the subway happy happy joy joy
Honestly Im just tired of the stigma…and on some level I might secretly wish I was off the meds. I haven’t smoked a cigarette in three months, I dont even smoke weed. Being sane and sober is a miserable thing especially when you’re still treated like crap for a label.
I’m tired of people suffering needlessly with this illness. I’m in favour of taking the most direct path to recovery. If it hurts a few feelings, oh well.