hrm, re panhandling
Apr. 4th, 2009 02:00 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
keryxI'm starting to do some volunteer work with Daily Planet (it's a homeless services agency here in town). Yesterday I had a conversation there about services and free will/agency of people who might need or want them. Some of the folk at the Planet are big fans of anti-panhandling laws, or at least of giving people literature instead of a dollar.
You know, because the person you give a dollar to is more likely to use it to buy something that doesn't improve their quality of life. Except. By whose standards?
The woman I was talking to implied that coercing people into seeking help is perfectly acceptable, in fact, desirable vs. people choosing to live (with what we assume is lower quality of life, measured by our own standards) without help.
This idea bothers me.
People might have perfectly valid (to them) reasons not to seek help. People might also have untreated mental illness or substance abuse issues, too - they might not be making "good" decisions, and they might be in pain as a result. I just find it very difficult to decide one decision is good and another isn't. There's just following social norms and not following social norms. I'm ok with arguing that, from experience, you know most people you push into mental health treatment and shelter are later happier and glad you did, if that comes with recognition that you might be wrong about this person - and that doesn't make them "unsaveable", just uninterested.
I suppose I'll have some homeless folk I know well enough to ask this question soon. Not that they'll be a representative group, but they're closer to the question than I am. It's easy to think in abstractions.
You know, because the person you give a dollar to is more likely to use it to buy something that doesn't improve their quality of life. Except. By whose standards?
The woman I was talking to implied that coercing people into seeking help is perfectly acceptable, in fact, desirable vs. people choosing to live (with what we assume is lower quality of life, measured by our own standards) without help.
This idea bothers me.
People might have perfectly valid (to them) reasons not to seek help. People might also have untreated mental illness or substance abuse issues, too - they might not be making "good" decisions, and they might be in pain as a result. I just find it very difficult to decide one decision is good and another isn't. There's just following social norms and not following social norms. I'm ok with arguing that, from experience, you know most people you push into mental health treatment and shelter are later happier and glad you did, if that comes with recognition that you might be wrong about this person - and that doesn't make them "unsaveable", just uninterested.
I suppose I'll have some homeless folk I know well enough to ask this question soon. Not that they'll be a representative group, but they're closer to the question than I am. It's easy to think in abstractions.