[onion2k]

Many mentally ill people are still in a position where they can still make decisions for themselves, but their illness means that they choose things that are ostensibly bad for them eg refusing help to get off the streets, help with addiction, stopping them committing suicide, etc. That means society has to decide between forcing people to do things against their will or respecting their decision even though it's what we as a society believe is bad. In order to intervene in someone's life to help them you have to decide how ill someone has to be before you step in.

That is not a straightforward choice, and choosing to let people do things that are bad for them doesn't mean there's anything wrong with the society. It may mean that bad things happen, but the converse, where society steps in when you're deemed 'incapable', might be worse if it's not managed exceptionally well.

As an example, consider whether should someone who is depressed to the point of needing medication be banned from buying alcohol (which is a depressant) because it'll make their situation worse, or should society let depressed people use alcohol as an escape from their illness? Does being ill mean you have to give up your right to decide how to live your life?

[empressplay]

In fact, the absolute worst thing you can do with someone whose still "fighting" is to institutionalise them. Once you label and stigmatise them that way, they tend to give up fighting, and whatever benefit they were to society, even in a limited capacity, is then lost.

You want them to keep fighting.

[loceng]

This is why I think mobile vehicles that visit the homeless (for medical, dental, showers, food) are just so brilliant and wonderful.

[eru]

> That is not a straightforward choice, [...]

And no matter what (sensible) tradeoffs you make, it will always be agonizing around the margin.

[ska]

  and choosing to let people do things that are bad for them doesn't mean there's anything wrong with the society. 

True, but the discussion doesn't end there. For example: ".. and leaving them to suffer with the consequences of their actions " vs. " ... and supporting them through the negative consequences if it doesn't go well" are very different responses, and certainly do reflect on the society in question.

[girvo]

> * alcohol (which is a depressant)*

I thought a depressant in the context of drugs means "central nervous system depressant", not "causes depression"?

[stan_rogers]

... and alcohol is a CNS depressant. A common "can't afford to smell of booze right now" substitute (at least in the old days; it's been a very long time between drinks for me) was Seconal. It ain't the same, but it takes the edge off in the right way.

[chris_wot]

Good on you, it must be tough to give up. You have my respect.