Lev Lafayette
Usenet User
Registered: Not Yet
Location:
Posts: N/A |
Re: Explaining why self harm should be an arrestable offence
Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> wrote in message news:<417cad2d$0$32599$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au>...
> Lev Lafayette wrote:
>
> > "William Walker" <ww1971@bigpond.com> wrote in message news:<ttLed.37451$5O5.16924@news-server.bigpond.net.au>...
> >
> >>I wish to detail in full form in why I am calling for self harm to be an
> >>arrestable offence.
> >>
> >>http://users.bigpond.com/willwalk/selfharm.htm
> >>
> >>There simply aren't enough beds in hospitals for needy cases because the
> >>beds are being taken up by people who self harm.
> >
> >
> > Too easy.
> >
> > Personal act, personal responsibility.
> >
> > If a person freely engages in an action that causes them to end up in
> > hospital then let them pay the bill.
>
> How close does the link have to be between the freely engaged action,
> and the resulting injury.
>
> Popping pills seems direct enough, as does throwing your self off a
> cliff. But what about point jumping (with a parachute), hang-gliding,
> motorcycling, rugby playing, car travel, walking down the street, eating
> too much, staying in bed?
>
> How do we decide where personal resposibility ends?
Hey, I merely suggested "a" solution, not "the" solution.
One word keeps on popping up in my mind with your examples, and that's
"insurance" versus "accidents".
It's certainly better than adopting Mr. Walkers sadism which would
turn a troubled junkie or other suicide case into an institution which
is notorious for drugs and suicides.
Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged
|