@zahlanzi saidYour flippancy to people experiencing mental health issues is unworthy of serious response.
"I work in mental health. I have visited 3 people already this week who can not wear a mask. (One who is severely asthmatic, but the other two for reasons relating to their mental health. PTSD/Anxiety). "
Yes, yes, quite sad. Let's have them endanger the health of everyone else, to make them feel happy.
"My primary role with these clients is social inclusion, all three ...[text shortened]... that same supermarket and he will be doing it without a mask, because he is super anxious about it.
Jog on.
@ghost-of-a-duke saidYou also have a professional duty to the public. IF one of your clients because of their mental health issues posed a clear danger of harm to other individuals, surely you would have a moral obligation to prevent them from doing so. And IF that entailed physically restraining them, there is ample legal justification and past precedent to do so.
I work in mental health. I have visited 3 people already this week who can not wear a mask. (One who is severely asthmatic, but the other two for reasons relating to their mental health. PTSD/Anxiety).
My primary role with these clients is social inclusion, all three isolated and at risk of neglect and relapse. The critical need for these people to be supported in ...[text shortened]... g term would be a failure in this regard and the reason any civilized society recognizes exemptions.
I'm having a difficult time understanding what justification is sufficient to allow persons to potentially spread a deadly disease, knowing in advance that exemptions of this sort will surely means additional sickness and death. I have not heard any reasonable one yet.
@ghost-of-a-duke saidYes, i am really flippant. Choosing some people to stay at home rather than endangering a whole lot of other people.
Your flippancy to people experiencing mental health issues is unworthy of serious response.
Jog on.
Hmmm, a very small minority staying at home or the rest of the people being put at risk of catching a deadly disease? It's the moral dilemma of the century. Like the trolley problem only that if you pull the lever some people watch Netflix at home and have to stare out the window for a while but if you don't some people die.
The great philosophers will be struggling with this one for decades.
@no1marauder said"I have not heard any reasonable one yet."
You also have a professional duty to the public. IF one of your clients because of their mental health issues posed a clear danger of harm to other individuals, surely you would have a moral obligation to prevent them from doing so. And IF that entailed physically restraining them, there is ample legal justification and past precedent to do so.
I'm having a difficult ...[text shortened]... this sort will surely means additional sickness and death. I have not heard any reasonable one yet.
Staying inside makes them sad. What, it's not enough?
19 Aug 20
@ghost-of-a-duke saidYou are supposed to. What, you want a cookie? Do you also stay within the speed limit when driving ?
Yes. I wear a mask. (Because I am able to).
@ghost-of-a-duke saidAre you seriously suggesting there are more than 60 people in Britain with traumas which make it psychologically impossible to wear a mask?
It's not 1 in a million Shav. I wish it was.
And I agree, the real issue is the 'long term' requirement of people to be virtual prisoners at home if physically or mentally unable to wear a mask. And these are people who are probably already socially isolated.
That is such a niche trauma, you’re gonna have to back it up with figures.
Your follow up argument: these people are already socially isolated and shouldn’t be punished for their psychological damage.
Yes. Quite right.
There is an exception though: the safety of society.
If one’s PTSD leads one to beat up random strangers in the street, do you not feel thet the person should be restrained from walking down the street?
20 Aug 20
The post that was quoted here has been removedyes but one not wearing a helmet endangers only themselves. Doesn't apply here. How about if someone argued in court that they should be allowed to drive 100km/h within city limits because of medical reasons? Or a man with violent outbursts shouldn't be committed because it would violate his right to freedom?
would you argue that to commit such a person is inhumane?
- Joined
- 16 Feb 08
- Moves
- 116993
@ghost-of-a-duke saidAre you a mental health practitioner?
I work in mental health. I have visited 3 people already this week who can not wear a mask. (One who is severely asthmatic, but the other two for reasons relating to their mental health. PTSD/Anxiety).
My primary role with these clients is social inclusion, all three isolated and at risk of neglect and relapse. The critical need for these people to be supported in ...[text shortened]... g term would be a failure in this regard and the reason any civilized society recognizes exemptions.
- Joined
- 16 Feb 08
- Moves
- 116993
It could be argued I suppose, that if a person”s mental condition is so brittle and damaged that wearing a lightweight surgical mask (only for the brief time they are in a retail outlet) is feared to damage it further, then that person has a debilitating problem which the not wearing of the mask will not prevent.
(Edit pls excuse the double negative.)
20 Aug 20
@no1marauder saidI’m having trouble imagining why your concerning yourself with persecuting a small minority of vulnerable people when you cannot get perfectly healthy people to wear a mask.
You also have a professional duty to the public. IF one of your clients because of their mental health issues posed a clear danger of harm to other individuals, surely you would have a moral obligation to prevent them from doing so. And IF that entailed physically restraining them, there is ample legal justification and past precedent to do so.
I'm having a difficult ...[text shortened]... this sort will surely means additional sickness and death. I have not heard any reasonable one yet.
The flu is a deadly disease if you have underlying issues so maybe we should lock these people in their homes and throw away the key.
Masks are part of a common sense approach to combatting covid 19, it’s not a hands in the air screaming issue, in some countries it’s obviously become a partisan political weapon and it’s abhorrent that physically and emotionally vulnerable people should be collateral damage in the war.
20 Aug 20
@divegeester saidNot sure what point your making dive, these people cannot breathe and wear a mask at the same time.
It could be argued I suppose, that if a person”s mental condition is so brittle and damaged that wearing a lightweight surgical mask (only for the brief time they are in a retail outlet) is feared to damage it further, then that person has a debilitating problem which the not wearing of the mask will not prevent.
(Edit pls excuse the double negative.)
If for whatever reason a person is deemed unable to wear a mask are you agreeing that they should be restricted to their homes? I don’t think it’s just shopping trips that under threat for these vulnerable people but anywhere that the authorities deem masks compulsory.
It’s definitely a theoretical question for most of us, I go shopping in my mask everyday next to teenagers laughing and cavorting without one.
20 Aug 20
@zahlanzi said“To label them as selfish really is profoundly naive."
"I think this is where you are evidencing your own lack of understanding and empathy for people who 'cannot' wear a mask. (To really quite a laughable extent).
To label them as selfish really is profoundly naive."
Really? Not where they cough in the face of people who are following the rules and would pretty much like to not get a deadly disease? Are you showing empathy ...[text shortened]... wearing a mask makes you selfish. You lack of understanding and empathy to quite a laughable extent.
Really? Not where they cough in the face of people who are following the rules and would pretty much like to not get a deadly disease? Are you showing empathy towards those people? “
Are you now claiming that the problem is vulnerable people running around coughing in peoples faces, because in general they are usually a bit more reticent than that. Do let us know when you reach the ‘bottom of the barrel’ in terms of arguments.