NYPD Officers to Start Carrying Heroin Overdose Antidote Kits

 Pages 1 2 NEXT
 

NYPD Officers to Start Carrying Heroin Overdose Antidote Kits

Heroin Overdose Kit 310x

19,500 kits to be purchased with forfeiture case money, to be carried primarily by officers on transit, and housing duty.

The NYPD will start issuing heroin overdose antidote kits to its officers this year, in a move that will hopefully stem the ever-raising tide of heroin overdose-related deaths.

The force will get 19,500 kits, worth about $1.2 million, paid for by the New York State Attorney General's office with "civil and criminal forfeiture" case money (police auction money, I think). The kits cost about $60 each.

The kits, which are part of the NY AG's Community Overdose Prevention (COP) program, come with two syringes and two inhalers full of opioid overdose-fighting naloxone, a drug also sold under the brand name Narcan.

How does naloxone work? Keeping in mind that I am in fact not[/a] Doogie Howser, M.D., naloxone and Narcan are non-addicting medications that "counteract life-threatening depression of the central nervous system and respiratory system, allowing an overdose victim to breathe normally."

New York City isn't the first metropolitan area to issue these kits to its cops. Officers in Quincy, MA have been carrying similar kits since Q3 2010. In the 221 instances where Quincy officers have used the kits in the field, 211 opioid overdose cases were successfully reversed -- good for a 95 percent success rate.

Source: AP/NY Post

[b]Permalink

An even better investment would be a firing and researching for recruits that aren't racist, bullying, power hungry tyrants.

Devin Connors:
The force will get 19,500 kits, worth about $1.2 million, paid for by the New York State Attorney General's office with "civil and criminal forfeiture" case money (police auction money, I think).

Usually forfeiture money comes from both auctioning off actual assets involved, as well as just the confiscation of cash from criminals. The practice has come under fire in the past few years:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/03/22/tennessee-asset-forfeiture_n_2933246.html

One of the more controversial tactics recently (I can't find a link at the moment) is that some police departments were generally choosing not to pull over drug traffickers going one direction on a highway, when they were carrying drugs (which obviously can't be sold off, and can only be destroyed), in favor of pulling them over on their return trip, when they're carrying large amounts of cash that can then be forfeited.

UNHchabo:

Devin Connors:
The force will get 19,500 kits, worth about $1.2 million, paid for by the New York State Attorney General's office with "civil and criminal forfeiture" case money (police auction money, I think).

Usually forfeiture money comes from both auctioning off actual assets involved, as well as just the confiscation of cash from criminals. The practice has come under fire in the past few years:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/03/22/tennessee-asset-forfeiture_n_2933246.html

One of the more controversial tactics recently (I can't find a link at the moment) is that some police departments were generally choosing not to pull over drug traffickers going one direction on a highway, when they were carrying drugs (which obviously can't be sold off, and can only be destroyed), in favor of pulling them over on their return trip, when they're carrying large amounts of cash that can then be forfeited.

No the best one is were police were caught planting drugs so they could seize the home of a wrongly raided person and then after the video is shown the home owner gets imprisoned for 'illegally' filming the police while they got off with a 3 month suspension for planting evidence.

Or the one were after raiding a tanning salon they beat the owner and then after seeing the surveillance camera destroyed it but luckily for the owner she had off site back up to prove she didn't resist arrest or have drugs (though still got 5 months for illegally filming the police with her in plain site CCTV).

These are gonna save a lot of lives. My company has the Pharma contract for these, it's pretty exciting. Definitely a bit more exciting than a new NSAID.

I love how people here are complaining about bad cops when we are given an article that will effectively make police there to save at least some lives. There are some shitty cops out there, but that isn't every cop, not even most so far as my experience tells me.

In Philly, there are cops that attack people unprovoked because the "suspect" the guys may be involved in cop shooting (that was amusingly all over the news). In Truth or Consequences New Mexico, half the cops are Meth heads (words from the mouth of a town official when I lived there). In Detroit, the SWAT team literally gets away with the murder of a 5 year old girl. But for every shitty shitty terrible cop, there is at least one cop who helps you when you are lost, or injects Narcan into a family member to save their lives after they stupidly OD on Heroine.

Perspective people, it's all about perspective.

So can we assume that after a law enforcement officer saves the life of a heroin user, said user will then be arrested? Then, if convicted, the illegal drug user's assets can be seized in order to fund more overdose kits. Because I'm all for public programs that end up paying for themselves.

MinionJoe:
So can we assume that after a law enforcement officer saves the life of a heroin user, said user will then be arrested? Then, if convicted, the illegal drug user's assets can be seized in order to fund more overdose kits. Because I'm all for public programs that end up paying for themselves.

they are heroine users, they dont have any assets, the best thing would be just to let them die so they stop breaking into peoples homes to support their habit and knifing poor old ladies on the street

I predict an officer not using a needle correctly and there being some kind of lawsuit going on in the future. :/

iblis666:

MinionJoe:
So can we assume that after a law enforcement officer saves the life of a heroin user, said user will then be arrested? Then, if convicted, the illegal drug user's assets can be seized in order to fund more overdose kits. Because I'm all for public programs that end up paying for themselves.

they are heroine users, they dont have any assets, the best thing would be just to let them die so they stop breaking into peoples homes to support their habit and knifing poor old ladies on the street

I can't tell if you're joking about "letting them die", so they cease to be humans when they acquire a drug habit which can potentially be dangerous to other people?

You're letting people die to potentially save other people... do I need to elaborate on what's abhorrent about that?

Kumagawa Misogi:

UNHchabo:

Devin Connors:
The force will get 19,500 kits, worth about $1.2 million, paid for by the New York State Attorney General's office with "civil and criminal forfeiture" case money (police auction money, I think).

Usually forfeiture money comes from both auctioning off actual assets involved, as well as just the confiscation of cash from criminals. The practice has come under fire in the past few years:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/03/22/tennessee-asset-forfeiture_n_2933246.html

One of the more controversial tactics recently (I can't find a link at the moment) is that some police departments were generally choosing not to pull over drug traffickers going one direction on a highway, when they were carrying drugs (which obviously can't be sold off, and can only be destroyed), in favor of pulling them over on their return trip, when they're carrying large amounts of cash that can then be forfeited.

No the best one is were police were caught planting drugs so they could seize the home of a wrongly raided person and then after the video is shown the home owner gets imprisoned for 'illegally' filming the police while they got off with a 3 month suspension for planting evidence.

Or the one were after raiding a tanning salon they beat the owner and then after seeing the surveillance camera destroyed it but luckily for the owner she had off site back up to prove she didn't resist arrest or have drugs (though still got 5 months for illegally filming the police with her in plain site CCTV).

Let's not forget that whether or not your assets are forfeit is unrelated to whether or not you actually committed the crime. The property itself has a lawsuit against it, and barring you hiring a lawyer for your possessions and jumping through the (expensive) legal hoops, you aren't going to see that stuff back. Even if acquitted of the crime (because the forfeiture has a lower standard of evidence and a separate lawsuit). It's entirely bullshit.

Laws against filming public servants in the performance of their duty are also bullshit: Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?

Rule Britannia:
I predict an officer not using a needle correctly and there being some kind of lawsuit going on in the future. :/

Well, believe it or not, they aren't standard injections that are depicted here. They are actually using a semi-automated needle system. They pop the top off the needle, and the system tells the officer where to place the needle, detects the right or wrong pressure and has the officer adjust, the injections occurs automatically with little to no intervention from the officer.

Also, I'm sure they are protected under Good Samaritan laws. The same thing that protects people who try to perform CPR and either fail to save the person or causes some kind of bodily injury such as broken ribs (not entirely unheard of in a CPR situation).

Dragonbums:
An even better investment would be a firing and researching for recruits that aren't racist, bullying, power hungry tyrants.

What's the alternative? Not just hand a badge and gun to virtually anyone who applies for a job that is naturally attractive to those who seek power over their fellow man?

What a dumb prospect.

Baresark:

Rule Britannia:
I predict an officer not using a needle correctly and there being some kind of lawsuit going on in the future. :/

Well, believe it or not, they aren't standard injections that are depicted here. They are actually using a semi-automated needle system. They pop the top off the needle, and the system tells the officer where to place the needle, detects the right or wrong pressure and has the officer adjust, the injections occurs automatically with little to no intervention from the officer.

Also, I'm sure they are protected under Good Samaritan laws. The same thing that protects people who try to perform CPR and either fail to save the person or causes some kind of bodily injury such as broken ribs (not entirely unheard of in a CPR situation).

I honestly find the whole thing odd. In my area they are thinking about having police carry Narcan, but they will be using a nasal spray adapter that attaches to the end of a syringe. It is something new that I haven't tried out myself yet, but seems pretty foolproof. Simply stick the triangle sponge into the nose and spray half the contents in each side. I'm pretty sure it's even the same as the IV dose. But I clearly see in that picture that the instructions say to inject into the leg (like an Epi-pen). Not super surprised because the drug seems to be pretty flexible to administer (can also be given directly into the lungs via an ET tube).

My first thought is... wonderful! police often arrive on scene before EMS, much of the time for safety reasons, but other times because calls don't come out as EMS related until the office on scene finds the person breathing 3 times per min. This will save lives.

My second thought is... will the media please shut up about it. Last year the local news was running stories about a miracle drug the police would be carrying that could "bring an overdose patient back from the dead". The last thing we need is people being even more reckless thinking they have a get out of jail free card. Narcan doesn't work on everything guys.

Also make sure to understand the good Samaritan laws, it would NOT apply to a police officer because he is using that medication as a part of his job. Those laws are to protect people who try to help others, outside of employment, and are NOT DOING ANYTHING THEY DON'T KNOW HOW. If you haven't been trained to do CPR (takes about an hour, go get a CPR card now) and you hurt someone trying that law isn't going to protect you. If you saw someone in a movie cut a hole in someone's neck when they were choking, the law WILL NOT PROTECT YOU if you try that. If you have a good CPR card and see someone in need of CPR, and you aren't grossly negligent (don't try to help if you're drunk, that's a no-no), and you give them CPR and they die anyway, the law will protect you from angry money grubbing family. Its a great law, but it isn't "I tried to help this guy cause I'm nice so I can't be sued".

So now officers get to plant heroine AND forcibly inject people with shit when they randomly attack someone the don't like.

Instead of saying "You looked threatening to us" they can say "What, we saved your life, you looked like a druggo, see we even 'found' heroine on you."

Majinash:

Baresark:

Rule Britannia:
I predict an officer not using a needle correctly and there being some kind of lawsuit going on in the future. :/

Well, believe it or not, they aren't standard injections that are depicted here. They are actually using a semi-automated needle system. They pop the top off the needle, and the system tells the officer where to place the needle, detects the right or wrong pressure and has the officer adjust, the injections occurs automatically with little to no intervention from the officer.

Also, I'm sure they are protected under Good Samaritan laws. The same thing that protects people who try to perform CPR and either fail to save the person or causes some kind of bodily injury such as broken ribs (not entirely unheard of in a CPR situation).

I honestly find the whole thing odd. In my area they are thinking about having police carry Narcan, but they will be using a nasal spray adapter that attaches to the end of a syringe. It is something new that I haven't tried out myself yet, but seems pretty foolproof. Simply stick the triangle sponge into the nose and spray half the contents in each side. I'm pretty sure it's even the same as the IV dose. But I clearly see in that picture that the instructions say to inject into the leg (like an Epi-pen). Not super surprised because the drug seems to be pretty flexible to administer (can also be given directly into the lungs via an ET tube).

My first thought is... wonderful! police often arrive on scene before EMS, much of the time for safety reasons, but other times because calls don't come out as EMS related until the office on scene finds the person breathing 3 times per min. This will save lives.

My second thought is... will the media please shut up about it. Last year the local news was running stories about a miracle drug the police would be carrying that could "bring an overdose patient back from the dead". The last thing we need is people being even more reckless thinking they have a get out of jail free card. Narcan doesn't work on everything guys.

Also make sure to understand the good Samaritan laws, it would NOT apply to a police officer because he is using that medication as a part of his job. Those laws are to protect people who try to help others, outside of employment, and are NOT DOING ANYTHING THEY DON'T KNOW HOW. If you haven't been trained to do CPR (takes about an hour, go get a CPR card now) and you hurt someone trying that law isn't going to protect you. If you saw someone in a movie cut a hole in someone's neck when they were choking, the law WILL NOT PROTECT YOU if you try that. If you have a good CPR card and see someone in need of CPR, and you aren't grossly negligent (don't try to help if you're drunk, that's a no-no), and you give them CPR and they die anyway, the law will protect you from angry money grubbing family. Its a great law, but it isn't "I tried to help this guy cause I'm nice so I can't be sued".

I stand corrected about Good Samaritan laws.

I don't think anyone is going to treat this like a get out of jail free card. I'm pretty sure that heroine addicts everywhere are not reading this knowing that they can OD at their leisure. A heroine addicts goal is to get high as they can without OD'ing and dying. They just, you know, can't gauge that very well.

I'm glad to hear this is being done, I heard the governor trying to push this for the rest of New York's police officers a few weeks back and it's a good response to this state's depressingly large increase of heroin usage lately. Hopefully this will be able to save quite a few lives and help people realize their problem get their lives back on track before it's too late.

EDIT: Wow the amount of cynicism in this thread is completely amazing, guys not every cop in New York is a racist asshole who randomly attacks people. I'd say 99% of all the police officers in this state at any level from city police to county sheriff to state trooper are there because they care about serving and protecting their communities, not because of a want for power. You only ever hear the stories of corrupt cops or officers making foolish mistakes because they are exceptions to the rule, I bet you today alone hundreds of lives were saved in New York state alone because of the work of our officers at every level yet you don't hear their story because of how its expected of them.

DerangedHobo:

I can't tell if you're joking about "letting them die", so they cease to be humans when they acquire a drug habit which can potentially be dangerous to other people?

I'm sorry to say this, but when you spend enough time with them, they kind of do.

"Humanity" implies at least being able to learn from one's mistakes, and a degree of self control and awareness.

An opiate wired mind is pretty much a seek and destroy mechanism, it exists to acquire heroin and not much else.

Since money and civil liberties are too important to Americans to spend money on rehab centers and for junkies to be forced into those (instead of prisons), maybe 'letting them die' is a bit of a mercy. The habit isn't something one can kick with the inadequate social safety nets that are in place, and the life these people live doesn't seem like a particularly fun existence.

Devin Connors:
[b]not[/a]

i think your html code just had an accident.

DerangedHobo:

You're letting people die to potentially save other people... do I need to elaborate on what's abhorrent about that?

erm, theres nothing abohorent with letting few people suicide in order to save many other people lives.

DerangedHobo:

You're letting people die to potentially save other people... do I need to elaborate on what's abhorrent about that?

Strazdas:
erm, theres nothing abohorent with letting few people suicide in order to save many other people lives.

But that's implying you will save an amount of people proportionate to those you 'let die'. Letting people die to 'save' other people is always abhorrent.

Gennadios:

DerangedHobo:

I can't tell if you're joking about "letting them die", so they cease to be humans when they acquire a drug habit which can potentially be dangerous to other people?

I'm sorry to say this, but when you spend enough time with them, they kind of do.

"Humanity" implies at least being able to learn from one's mistakes, and a degree of self control and awareness.

An opiate wired mind is pretty much a seek and destroy mechanism, it exists to acquire heroin and not much else.

Since money and civil liberties are too important to Americans to spend money on rehab centers and for junkies to be forced into those (instead of prisons), maybe 'letting them die' is a bit of a mercy. The habit isn't something one can kick with the inadequate social safety nets that are in place, and the life these people live doesn't seem like a particularly fun existence.

Shouldn't the call be spend more money on rehab centers and helping junkies than blowing people up in third world countries? The USA especially has the money to spend on helping those with a drug addiction problem but it's too busy pissing it away on military and the completely effective drug war.

And humanity doesn't imply that, regardless of whether it's an opiate wired mind or a sober one they're still people. You don't let a schizophrenic kill themself because they're unstable and their life doesn't seem like a particularly fun existence. We all fuck up just to varying degrees and we all have our reasons for doing so.

Sheen Lantern:

Dragonbums:
An even better investment would be a firing and researching for recruits that aren't racist, bullying, power hungry tyrants.

What's the alternative? Not just hand a badge and gun to virtually anyone who applies for a job that is naturally attractive to those who seek power over their fellow man?

What a dumb prospect.

Do it like other countries? Give cops a powerful can of mace and a beating stick. Require them to have audio recording on ON the entire time. Especially if they confront a civillian. That way there are NO issue whatsoever who did what, said what, or heard what. Encourage other bystanders and other nearby civilians to record or photograph incidents. That way cops always know to act on their best behavior.

So, really, it's not a stupid prospect. You just aren't trying even a iota hard enough to even think up alternate solutions aside from "have a gun".

Dragonbums:

Sheen Lantern:

Dragonbums:
An even better investment would be a firing and researching for recruits that aren't racist, bullying, power hungry tyrants.

What's the alternative? Not just hand a badge and gun to virtually anyone who applies for a job that is naturally attractive to those who seek power over their fellow man?

What a dumb prospect.

Do it like other countries? Give cops a powerful can of mace and a beating stick. Require them to have audio recording on ON the entire time. Especially if they confront a civillian. That way there are NO issue whatsoever who did what, said what, or heard what. Encourage other bystanders and other nearby civilians to record or photograph incidents. That way cops always know to act on their best behavior.

So, really, it's not a stupid prospect. You just aren't trying even a iota hard enough to even think up alternate solutions aside from "have a gun".

I think Sheen here was being sarcastic.

Dragonbums:

Sheen Lantern:

Dragonbums:
An even better investment would be a firing and researching for recruits that aren't racist, bullying, power hungry tyrants.

What's the alternative? Not just hand a badge and gun to virtually anyone who applies for a job that is naturally attractive to those who seek power over their fellow man?

What a dumb prospect.

Do it like other countries? Give cops a powerful can of mace and a beating stick. Require them to have audio recording on ON the entire time. Especially if they confront a civillian. That way there are NO issue whatsoever who did what, said what, or heard what. Encourage other bystanders and other nearby civilians to record or photograph incidents. That way cops always know to act on their best behavior.

So, really, it's not a stupid prospect. You just aren't trying even a iota hard enough to even think up alternate solutions aside from "have a gun".

I think Sheen Lantern might have been being sarcastic there friendo... I mean he does frame the police as being people who seek power over people.

DerangedHobo:

DerangedHobo:

You're letting people die to potentially save other people... do I need to elaborate on what's abhorrent about that?

Strazdas:
erm, theres nothing abohorent with letting few people suicide in order to save many other people lives.

But that's implying you will save an amount of people proportionate to those you 'let die'. Letting people die to 'save' other people is always abhorrent.

Er... wrong, on both counts. The lives of those involved have different values. A junkie's "value" - worth to society - is low. In fact, it's very often negative; he incurs costs and clogs up health care systems, police, jails, what have you, for ~nothing in return. Having many of those die to reduce the number of non-junkies that die is alright - in fact, just looking at it economically, having them die with no other benefit is often alright (net gain for society, freeing up resources for others). The reduction in collateral damage they cause is just icing on the cake.

Yes, they're "people," but people are made differently. Different people with different skillsets are "worth" different amounts to society. Someone who simply exists as a drain on resources is, by definition, worth less than one who contributes. It's not logical to look at it any other way. Even if you manage to clean up a junkie, they're often older than standard entry-job-level age and less receptive to education. Exceptions exist, obviously, but those exceptions are the minority, and don't make up for the cost of looking after the majority who don't and won't contribute.

Speaking of logic, though, you really have to describe how you came to the conclusion that "Letting people die to 'save' other people is always abhorrent" because that makes no logical sense whatsoever. The first problem is the inclusion of the word "always," which hints at ignoring all potential circumstances when making judgment, and that is the very opposite of logic. No wide, sweeping statement like yours is true 100% of the time - the world is not black and white. Pretending that shades of gray don't exist is simply childish.

Darren716:

I stand corrected about Good Samaritan laws.

I don't think anyone is going to treat this like a get out of jail free card. I'm pretty sure that heroine addicts everywhere are not reading this knowing that they can OD at their leisure. A heroine addicts goal is to get high as they can without OD'ing and dying. They just, you know, can't gauge that very well.

It's a good idea for everyone to brush up on the Good Samaritan laws in their area. One day you may look back at that time you stopped to help someone in need as one of the better moments in your life, and it doesn't hurt to go into that situation knowing exactly what you can do without any risk to yourself.

And I understand what you are saying, but I guess my rant about "get out of jail free" card came from the local news story in my area, where they were describing the drug as a "miracle" drug that could "bring someone back to life". That kind of reporting is irresponsible.

It's true addicts aren't TRYING to OD, but when they hear about the miracle drug, they might be less careful. That's bad for everyone.

Strazdas:

Devin Connors:
[b]not[/a]

i think your html code just had an accident.

DerangedHobo:

You're letting people die to potentially save other people... do I need to elaborate on what's abhorrent about that?

erm, theres nothing abohorent with letting few people suicide in order to save many other people lives.

Sure there is, when you can't prove that the person would have committed a violent crime. Herion use and abuse don't necessarily equate to on-the-street breaking and entering, mugging and the other sorts of stereotyping and stigma that goes with being an addict. Protect and serve is the general motto of police in the United States, and that also means the civil rights of criminals including saving their life without playing god with who lives and dies. Its not up to cops to execute folks except in immediate defense of life, nor is it their job to pass judgment. They only enforce the law, then the justice system (however screwed up it can be) takes over. They're not Judge Dredd and the day that happens the US officially ceases to be.

Imperioratorex Caprae:

Strazdas:

Devin Connors:
[b]not[/a]

i think your html code just had an accident.

DerangedHobo:

You're letting people die to potentially save other people... do I need to elaborate on what's abhorrent about that?

erm, theres nothing abohorent with letting few people suicide in order to save many other people lives.

Sure there is, when you can't prove that the person would have committed a violent crime. Herion use and abuse don't necessarily equate to on-the-street breaking and entering, mugging and the other sorts of stereotyping and stigma that goes with being an addict. Protect and serve is the general motto of police in the United States, and that also means the civil rights of criminals including saving their life without playing god with who lives and dies. Its not up to cops to execute folks except in immediate defense of life, nor is it their job to pass judgment. They only enforce the law, then the justice system (however screwed up it can be) takes over. They're not Judge Dredd and the day that happens the US officially ceases to be.

Well, for one this whole thing couls be dismissed merely by there being nothing abhorent by allowing people suicide to begin with, but thats not what you were aiming at.
Not being able to prove his potential is of course muddying the waters here, however it not necessarely makes it abhorent. A person holding a gun and breaking into your house may not have commited violent crimes either, however its acceptable that we shoot him in self defence. We do plenty of preventative attacks that end up saving lives and heroin addicts (its important that its heroin here, not all drugs are the same) are statistically very likely to assault and even murder in order to get their next fix.
By allowing an addict to die of overdose you would not be playing god. on the contrary you would be playing god by interviening and forcing him to live. I cant argue US police "mottos" but court cases have shown that their actual legal obligation is crime reaction, not crime prevention, and crime prevention requires preemtive actions to protect against a "possibility".
Cops do not execute civilians in this case. We are not talking about some police abuse cases showin in this thread. we are talking about a person who has overdosed on heroin and is dieing from it - a suicidal action taken by the person, in which the cop intervienes to prevent death. So cop is passing judgement who should live in this case.

DerangedHobo:

But that's implying you will save an amount of people proportionate to those you 'let die'. Letting people die to 'save' other people is always abhorrent.

Yes it does. Statistically, heroin addicts do amount of damage that is inproportionate to themselves, thus it is likely that implication to be true.
No, its not always abhorent. in fact its often praised as sacrificial act.
Lets take a popular scene from star trek, where Spock sacrifices himself in the engine chamber to save the crew. The crew is letting him die to save other people. This action is not abhorent however, meaning your initial claim was wrong.

DerangedHobo:

Shouldn't the call be spend more money on rehab centers and helping junkies than blowing people up in third world countries? The USA especially has the money to spend on helping those with a drug addiction problem but it's too busy pissing it away on military and the completely effective drug war.

but that would imply that US politics are sane. surely we cant let this happen!

Strazdas:
*SNIP*

Amending that, if they have the ability and knowledge to save a life, as first responders and they choose not to, then they're responsible and liable legally. Doesn't matter if its suicide or not, its civil responsibility. Also not all overdoses are intentional and not all suicides come with a note. Can't determine intent any more than you can determine what they will do. Also you're comparing a man holding a gun threatening life in the immediate sense to someone who can potentially do that in the future. Those are not the same thing.
We can argue "right to suicide" all we want but how do you judge which is an accident and which is on purpose? If we start to look down on the lowest parts of society and put them down, then when we are down at our lowest points, are we no better and don't deserve life as well? Everyone hits bottom somewhere, and should we not afford everyone other chances at living, no matter how desperate and down they are?
Compassion should guide people, not contempt. I hear more contempt from you on this and I'm saddened because you must also value your life so little. For you too have the same potential for greatness and at the same time we also have the potential to fall so far down we may feel we'll never see light again. No one is immune, no one is perfectly strong.
Its just wrong to allow someone to die, and I would not support anyone who can do that with no remorse being a police officer. They don't deserve that job, nor do they deserve to have any power over another human being.

CpT_x_Killsteal:

I think Sheen here was being sarcastic.

TrulyBritish:

I think Sheen Lantern might have been being sarcastic there friendo... I mean he does frame the police as being people who seek power over people.

Was he/she? If so, sorry about that Sheen Lantern.

It's hard to catch subtle sarcasm on the internet sometimes.

AuronFtw:

DerangedHobo:

DerangedHobo:

You're letting people die to potentially save other people... do I need to elaborate on what's abhorrent about that?

Strazdas:
erm, theres nothing abohorent with letting few people suicide in order to save many other people lives.

But that's implying you will save an amount of people proportionate to those you 'let die'. Letting people die to 'save' other people is always abhorrent.

Er... wrong, on both counts. The lives of those involved have different values. A junkie's "value" - worth to society - is low. In fact, it's very often negative; he incurs costs and clogs up health care systems, police, jails, what have you, for ~nothing in return. Having many of those die to reduce the number of non-junkies that die is alright - in fact, just looking at it economically, having them die with no other benefit is often alright (net gain for society, freeing up resources for others). The reduction in collateral damage they cause is just icing on the cake.

Yes, they're "people," but people are made differently. Different people with different skillsets are "worth" different amounts to society. Someone who simply exists as a drain on resources is, by definition, worth less than one who contributes. It's not logical to look at it any other way. Even if you manage to clean up a junkie, they're often older than standard entry-job-level age and less receptive to education. Exceptions exist, obviously, but those exceptions are the minority, and don't make up for the cost of looking after the majority who don't and won't contribute.

Speaking of logic, though, you really have to describe how you came to the conclusion that "Letting people die to 'save' other people is always abhorrent" because that makes no logical sense whatsoever. The first problem is the inclusion of the word "always," which hints at ignoring all potential circumstances when making judgment, and that is the very opposite of logic. No wide, sweeping statement like yours is true 100% of the time - the world is not black and white. Pretending that shades of gray don't exist is simply childish.

Wow, that's disgusting. A person's economic value is the standard by which they are to be measured? Whatever happened to simple compassion for a fellow human being?

AuronFtw:

DerangedHobo:

DerangedHobo:

You're letting people die to potentially save other people... do I need to elaborate on what's abhorrent about that?

Strazdas:
erm, theres nothing abohorent with letting few people suicide in order to save many other people lives.

But that's implying you will save an amount of people proportionate to those you 'let die'. Letting people die to 'save' other people is always abhorrent.

Er... wrong, on both counts. The lives of those involved have different values. A junkie's "value" - worth to society - is low. In fact, it's very often negative; he incurs costs and clogs up health care systems, police, jails, what have you, for ~nothing in return. Having many of those die to reduce the number of non-junkies that die is alright - in fact, just looking at it economically, having them die with no other benefit is often alright (net gain for society, freeing up resources for others). The reduction in collateral damage they cause is just icing on the cake.

Yes, they're "people," but people are made differently. Different people with different skillsets are "worth" different amounts to society. Someone who simply exists as a drain on resources is, by definition, worth less than one who contributes. It's not logical to look at it any other way. Even if you manage to clean up a junkie, they're often older than standard entry-job-level age and less receptive to education. Exceptions exist, obviously, but those exceptions are the minority, and don't make up for the cost of looking after the majority who don't and won't contribute.

Speaking of logic, though, you really have to describe how you came to the conclusion that "Letting people die to 'save' other people is always abhorrent" because that makes no logical sense whatsoever. The first problem is the inclusion of the word "always," which hints at ignoring all potential circumstances when making judgment, and that is the very opposite of logic. No wide, sweeping statement like yours is true 100% of the time - the world is not black and white. Pretending that shades of gray don't exist is simply childish.

Ok forgive the wording, what I meant to say is the idea of sacrificing people so you *might* save other people is abhorrent and also treating drug addicts like they are sub-human because they "are a drain on resources" is also abhorrent.

From your logic we should all line up the mentally and physically handicaped and shoot them in the head. "They can't work right? Fuck em". That's some fucked logic. The same with fat people, they also clog up the health system and can't work very well if at all. You coukd say I'm strawmanning your arguements in a way but from where I'm standing that seems like the statement you're making. The wheels start falling off when you start putting a value on human life, you start sounding like a sociopath. But what do I care, I'm a nihilist.

DerangedHobo:

Ok forgive the wording, what I meant to say is the idea of sacrificing people so you *might* save other people is abhorrent

I'm going to play a bit of a Devil's advocate and ask you: how do you decide who to save if you can't save everyone?

Sometimes large accidents happen, and you simply won't have the resources to save everyone. How are you going to decide? You could choose based on age. someone who just graduated from school has had a lot of effort from society put into them and is just starting to put that effort back into the community. Or the 4 year old because we are all programmed to protect small children. Or the 30 year old single mother who has to care for someone else. But how do you justify saving the 70year old man over those other 3? Doesn't he have a right to live too?

You could do what you're so much against. Put all your efforts into those who are productive in life and let those who are handicapped or "less than ideal" die.

Do you have a good way to choose who you get to save? I'll tell you mine.

Numbers.

"Do the most good for the most people" is how we triage when our treatment is limited by resources. That guy not breathing? spend 5seconds opening his airway, if it doesn't work tag him as dead and move on, it will take too much work to help him when there are 20 other people who could be saved with less of a drain on resources.

Do you think numbers is the best way to handle things? I'd say it depends on your perspective. When someone walks past your dying child to someone with a more manageable injury I would be willing to say you'd disagree.

I'll admit that I can't think of the perfect way to handle sacrificing people to save others. But it happens, and I think it is unfair to call the people who have do so abhorrent.

Majinash:

I'm going to play a bit of a Devil's advocate and ask you: how do you decide who to save if you can't save everyone?

Sometimes large accidents happen, and you simply won't have the resources to save everyone. How are you going to decide? You could choose based on age. someone who just graduated from school has had a lot of effort from society put into them and is just starting to put that effort back into the community. Or the 4 year old because we are all programmed to protect small children. Or the 30 year old single mother who has to care for someone else. But how do you justify saving the 70year old man over those other 3? Doesn't he have a right to live too?

You could do what you're so much against. Put all your efforts into those who are productive in life and let those who are handicapped or "less than ideal" die.

Do you have a good way to choose who you get to save? I'll tell you mine.

Numbers.

"Do the most good for the most people" is how we triage when our treatment is limited by resources. That guy not breathing? spend 5seconds opening his airway, if it doesn't work tag him as dead and move on, it will take too much work to help him when there are 20 other people who could be saved with less of a drain on resources.

Do you think numbers is the best way to handle things? I'd say it depends on your perspective. When someone walks past your dying child to someone with a more manageable injury I would be willing to say you'd disagree.

I'll admit that I can't think of the perfect way to handle sacrificing people to save others. But it happens, and I think it is unfair to call the people who have do so abhorrent.

But there's a distinction there, the situation you're talking about is one where you either do something and maximize the amount of people who live or they all die. It's a pretty sadistic situation but not choosing means more death. I shoudn't of been as broad as I was with that statement as obviously people like paramedics can't be counted as monsters for choosing who to help first and who to potentially let die.

DerangedHobo:

But there's a distinction there, the situation you're talking about is one where you either do something and maximize the amount of people who live or they all die. It's a pretty sadistic situation but not choosing means more death. I shoudn't of been as broad as I was with that statement as obviously people like paramedics can't be counted as monsters for choosing who to help first and who to potentially let die.

I appreciate you taking my post seriously. I'm not trying to attack your point of view. I just think the issue is a lot broader than any of us give it credit for. That situation I described is simply a microcosm of the bigger picture we see every day.

DerangedHobo:

iblis666:

MinionJoe:
So can we assume that after a law enforcement officer saves the life of a heroin user, said user will then be arrested? Then, if convicted, the illegal drug user's assets can be seized in order to fund more overdose kits. Because I'm all for public programs that end up paying for themselves.

they are heroine users, they dont have any assets, the best thing would be just to let them die so they stop breaking into peoples homes to support their habit and knifing poor old ladies on the street

I can't tell if you're joking about "letting them die", so they cease to be humans when they acquire a drug habit which can potentially be dangerous to other people?

You're letting people die to potentially save other people... do I need to elaborate on what's abhorrent about that?

they still are human but if they choose to form a drug habit that endangers their lives and the lives of others i dont think we should be trying to save their lives if they overdose. Its basically like committing suicide and i dont think that we have a right to get in the way of how they want to die and in doing so increase costs for the rest of us.

iblis666:

DerangedHobo:

iblis666:

they are heroine users, they dont have any assets, the best thing would be just to let them die so they stop breaking into peoples homes to support their habit and knifing poor old ladies on the street

I can't tell if you're joking about "letting them die", so they cease to be humans when they acquire a drug habit which can potentially be dangerous to other people?

You're letting people die to potentially save other people... do I need to elaborate on what's abhorrent about that?

they still are human but if they choose to form a drug habit that endangers their lives and the lives of others i dont think we should be trying to save their lives if they overdose. Its basically like committing suicide and i dont think that we have a right to get in the way of how they want to die and in doing so increase costs for the rest of us.

Well... we also do tend to try to save and help people who attempt suicide, too, y'know. Just because a person makes some dumb choices doesn't mean we should just leave them to die.

 Pages 1 2 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here