Need to Vent

[RogueBanana]

This kind of ignorant crap pisses me off to no end.
Spotted in my news feed A minute ago.

Who TF do these people think they are that they can suggest lifesaving emergency medicine be not worth the expense simply because they don't like the victim's illness?

Thoughts?

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[Gurkhali]

On the one hand, they're probably pandering for attention on social media and there are countless ignorant people who preach bs to the ignorant masses. On the other hand, dismissing them as ignorant won't really cut it. There is a breakdown in communication between the scientific/medical community and the public.

Ya, it annoys me too but it also strikes me as a symptom for something much worse.

 

[ChymeofPassion]

News Feed Eradicator for Facebook

Eliminate news feed, eliminate idiots, eliminate stress.

 

[RogueBanana]

On the one hand, they're probably pandering for attention on social media and there are countless ignorant people who preach bs to the ignorant masses. On the other hand, dismissing them as ignorant won't really cut it. There is a breakdown in communication between the scientific/medical community and the public.

Ya, it annoys me too but it also strikes me as a symptom for something much worse.

Well yeah I'm not gonna go around spouting off on how these people are ignorant in public. I wanted to post it here so I could express my frustration.

 

[tessellations]

I think the big problem is that a lot of people view drug addiction as a moral failing, and don't consider the societal, biological, and psychological aspects behind it. When it comes down to it, addiction is a mental illness, and mental illnesses are consistently stigmatized in our society. We certainly have come a long way, but people can be ridiculously ignorant.

Addicts are human beings struggling with some really tough stuff. They deserve treatment, especially life-saving treatment, just like everyone else. It saddens me that so many people lack basic empathy when it comes to addicts. On top of it, I get the sense that a lot of people who stigmatize addicts don't give a flying crap about the societal issues that more often than not help lead to addiction in the first place.

 

[Gurkhali]

Well yeah I'm not gonna go around spouting off on how these people are ignorant in public. I wanted to post it here so I could express my frustration.

Oh no, I wasn't accusing you of that. I'm just anticipating that's where this discussion might head. This is good to discuss imo.

 

[Lifeblood_20]

I feel you, OP. These types of posts piss me off and make me sad. Vent all you want. I absolutely feel you.

 

[Dr. Slimthick]

The real question is what paragraph of hash tags followed this comment. I always find an inverse relationship with the relative level of knowledge one has on a hot button topic and the amount of hashtags they place behind their "generalized solutions in saving the world" answers.

 

[ace_inhibitor111]

Hold on... You're interpreting that post as saying that Narcan shouldn't be free, but I'm interpreting it as saying that chemo should be free. If this were a shot against drug addicts, wouldn't the sentence be structured so the punchline (Narcan and addicts) be at the end of the sentence and not the beginning?

Aka "If chemo costs money for cancer patients, why doesn't Narcan cost money for drug addicts"

 

[stickgirl390]

Hold on... You're interpreting that post as saying that Narcan shouldn't be free, but I'm interpreting it as saying that chemo should be free. If this were a shot against drug addicts, wouldn't the sentence be structured so the punchline (Narcan and addicts) be at the end of the sentence and not the beginning?

Aka "If chemo costs money for cancer patients, why doesn't Narcan cost money for drug addicts"

I 2nd this.

 

[kb1900]

Why can't chemo be free? How is that offensive?

I feel like either you or the Facebook poster took the photo out of context or I'm completely missing it as well

 

[Dr. Jan Itor]

First, the apostrophes bother me.

Second, I imagine it has something to do with a two-dose kit of Narcan costing around $100 while chemo can range in the tens to hundreds of thousands of dollars.

And I say that as a cancer survivor.


Sent from my iPhone using SDN mobile

 

[Lost In Transcription]

The context clearly is implying that frug addicts shouldn't get barcan for free. OR that chemo SHOULD be free. Either eay, it's still using a moral high-ground comparison.

 

[tarheelpenner]

I think the big problem is that a lot of people view drug addiction as a moral failing, and don't consider the societal, biological, and psychological aspects behind it. When it comes down to it, addiction is a mental illness, and mental illnesses are consistently stigmatized in our society. We certainly have come a long way, but people can be ridiculously ignorant.

Addicts are human beings struggling with some really tough stuff. They deserve treatment, especially life-saving treatment, just like everyone else. It saddens me that so many people lack basic empathy when it comes to addicts. On top of it, I get the sense that a lot of people who stigmatize addicts don't give a flying crap about the societal issues that more often than not help lead to addiction in the first place.

I want to preface what I'm about to say by saying I agree with you 100%. I'm simply playing devil's advocate here.

With the above being said, I do not think that cancer and drug addiction are essentially on equal footing. It is not true that people (in general) knowingly/purposefully choose to use cancer-inducing substances (cigarettes being the exception here, obviously). Drug addiction specifically (I'm excluding alcohol from this statement) requires the user to first make a conscious choice to consume the substance that they know can cause addiction. After they first consume is a different story. But they did make that first, life-altering choice in a way that people who contract cancer do not.

Obviously, this is an oversimplification of the issue (and ignoring problems like gateway drugs...now I am including alcohol). And obviously, addiction is a disease, and these people are no less deserving of care. Still, it is an interesting discussion.

 

[ChymeofPassion]

I want to preface what I'm about to say by saying I agree with you 100%. I'm simply playing devil's advocate here.

With the above being said, I do not think that cancer and drug addiction are essentially on equal footing. It is not true that people (in general) knowingly/purposefully choose to use cancer-inducing substances (cigarettes being the exception here, obviously). Drug addiction specifically (I'm excluding alcohol from this statement) requires the user to first make a conscious choice to consume the substance that they know can cause addiction. After they first consume is a different story. But they did make that first, life-altering choice in a way that people who contract cancer do not.

Obviously, this is an oversimplification of the issue (and ignoring problems like gateway drugs...now I am including alcohol). And obviously, addiction is a disease, and these people are no less deserving of care. Still, it is an interesting discussion.

Also ignoring the poor souls who get their hip replaced after decades of backbreaking work only to get put on a fentanyl drip into a post-op oxycodon regimen that ruins their life. But I saw your preface

 

[tarheelpenner]

Also ignoring the poor souls who get their hip replaced after decades of backbreaking work only to get put on a fentanyl drip into a post-op oxycodon regimen that ruins their life. But I saw your preface

Also that, yes.

 

[laurenlee3]

I've recently been seeing this idiotic article circulating facebook titled "Stop Calling Your Drug Addiction a Disease", and it's INFURIATING. One line of it reads: "You chose to buy prescription pills that you did not need. You chose this." As if the author is completely oblivious to how most opioid addictions start. The whole thing is filled with ignorance and it makes me so angry.

 

[tessellations]

I want to preface what I'm about to say by saying I agree with you 100%. I'm simply playing devil's advocate here.

With the above being said, I do not think that cancer and drug addiction are essentially on equal footing. It is not true that people (in general) knowingly/purposefully choose to use cancer-inducing substances (cigarettes being the exception here, obviously). Drug addiction specifically (I'm excluding alcohol from this statement) requires the user to first make a conscious choice to consume the substance that they know can cause addiction. After they first consume is a different story. But they did make that first, life-altering choice in a way that people who contract cancer do not.

Obviously, this is an oversimplification of the issue (and ignoring problems like gateway drugs...now I am including alcohol). And obviously, addiction is a disease, and these people are no less deserving of care. Still, it is an interesting discussion.

Certainly some people will make the choice the start taking a drug. But to push back on your devil's advocate argument, in terms of the opioid epidemic, many of these people were prescribed their first dose. Taking oxycodone after a painful surgery for too long is very different than someone doing cocaine at a party for the first time.

Of course, going back to my initial point, it doesn't matter to me how someone gets addicted - I'm still going to treat anyone with a drug addiction with respect. And here's the thing - I don't see people saying that smokers with lung cancer shouldn't be treated and empathized with because they chose to smoke.

I just wish more people were aware of the societal reasons behind drug addiction and were less judgmental.

 

[Mad Jack]

View attachment 218488 This kind of ignorant crap pisses me off to no end.
Spotted in my news feed A minute ago.

Who TF do these people think they are that they can suggest lifesaving emergency medicine be not worth the expense simply because they don't like the victim's illness?

Thoughts?

I think you're taking the wrong message away- they're saying that chemo should be free, not that Narcan should not.

 

[Frogger27]

I think you're taking the wrong message away- they're saying that chemo should be free, not that Narcan should not.

^^ This is how I interpreted it, but I bombed CARS so maybe it's best not to trust my reading comprehension

 

[tarheelpenner]

Certainly some people will make the choice the start taking a drug. But to push back on your devil's advocate argument, in terms of the opioid epidemic, many of these people were prescribed their first dose. Taking oxycodone after a painful surgery for too long is very different than someone doing cocaine at a party for the first time.

Of course, going back to my initial point, it doesn't matter to me how someone gets addicted - I'm still going to treat anyone with a drug addiction with respect. And here's the thing - I don't see people saying that smokers with lung cancer shouldn't be treated and empathized with because they chose to smoke.

I just wish more people were aware of the societal reasons behind drug addiction and were less judgmental.

People should be way less judgmental for sure. And the opioid epidemic is certainly a major problem and an exception to my argument.

Logically speaking, then, people should 'blame' smokers for their cancer just as much as drug users are 'blamed' for their addiction. However, despite its known negative effects on health, smoking is not as stigmatized as certain drug use is. And as far as drugs in youth culture, it's all fun and games until drug addiction gets real. Drugs blend right into today's party culture (including harder drugs like cocaine, adderal, molly, etc.). I met several people over the course of my college career who both took recreational pills on a regular basis AND stigmatized addiction against other people who were seeking treatment. It's ironic, because they themselves are falling into their own trap. By stigmatizing addiction, they are setting themselves up for trouble when (if) they come around and decide to seek treatment for their own addiction. It's certainly a major problem. I have a fundamental issue with the logic of the culture. Drug users are criticized when they are using (you need to get clean, fix your life!). But then when they seek help, they are criticized again (you did this to yourself, you don't have a disease!).

The world is a messed up place.

 

[RogueBanana]

I think you're taking the wrong message away- they're saying that chemo should be free, not that Narcan should not.

I see how this could be taken out of context,

The post was shared from a conservative page by a conservative friend of mine and the comment section included such compassionate offerings such as

"F^*k them, stop giving first responders narcan and let the problem sort itself out"

"I ain't paying taxes to keep some lowlife junkie alive."

"Drug addiction isn't a disease! It's a choice! They don't deserve free treatment"

And my personal favorite

"It's a ploy by the federal government to embezzle millions of dollars from the taxpayer while giving our hard earned money the morally deranged and weak scum of society"

 

[RogueBanana]

Hold on... You're interpreting that post as saying that Narcan shouldn't be free, but I'm interpreting it as saying that chemo should be free. If this were a shot against drug addicts, wouldn't the sentence be structured so the punchline (Narcan and addicts) be at the end of the sentence and not the beginning?

Aka "If chemo costs money for cancer patients, why doesn't Narcan cost money for drug addicts"

I 2nd this.

Why can't chemo be free? How is that offensive?

I feel like either you or the Facebook poster took the photo out of context or I'm completely missing it as well

I think you're taking the wrong message away- they're saying that chemo should be free, not that Narcan should not.

See my above posting for clarification of context

 

[mwsapphire]

^^ This is how I interpreted it, but I bombed CARS so maybe it's best not to trust my reading comprehension

Looking at OP's context-clarification, the wording is certainly strange. If they were bashing Narcan, they should have said " If cancer patients pay for Chemo, why don't drug users pay for Narcan?"Generally, these statements are worded " Thing that's given" followed by " but this is outrageous"
Nothing wrong with your reading comp

 

[RogueBanana]

Looking at OP's context-clarification, the wording is certainly strange. If they were bashing Narcan, they should have said " If cancer patients pay for Chemo, why don't drug users pay for Narcan?"Generally, these statements are worded " Thing that's given" followed by " but this is outrageous"
Nothing wrong with your reading comp

The page that created this meme isn't really a hub of intellectually thought out content. I have to admit the wording of the post seemed a bit counterintuitive, because from the wording of the meme the natural conclusion is that all medicine should be free.

 

[cactusman]

I want to preface what I'm about to say by saying I agree with you 100%. I'm simply playing devil's advocate here.

With the above being said, I do not think that cancer and drug addiction are essentially on equal footing. It is not true that people (in general) knowingly/purposefully choose to use cancer-inducing substances (cigarettes being the exception here, obviously). Drug addiction specifically (I'm excluding alcohol from this statement) requires the user to first make a conscious choice to consume the substance that they know can cause addiction. After they first consume is a different story. But they did make that first, life-altering choice in a way that people who contract cancer do not.

Obviously, this is an oversimplification of the issue (and ignoring problems like gateway drugs...now I am including alcohol). And obviously, addiction is a disease, and these people are no less deserving of care. Still, it is an interesting discussion.

Or alcohol, or poor diet, or insufficient exercise, or tanning, or risky sexual behaviors leading to infection with certain viruses.
These are just risk factors, unlike the direct cause of overdose by drug use, many of them are correlated with socioeconomic status and other factors that are largely out of a patient's control, and of course I don't mean to suggest that cancer is a personal flaw. I just wanted to point out that tobacco use is not the only behavior which makes the moral high ground argument particularly weak.

 

[tarheelpenner]

Or alcohol, or poor diet, or insufficient exercise, or tanning, or risky sexual behaviors leading to infection with certain viruses.
These are just risk factors, unlike the direct cause of overdose by drug use, many of them are correlated with socioeconomic status and other factors that are largely out of a patient's control, and of course I don't mean to suggest that cancer is a personal flaw. I just wanted to point out that tobacco use is not the only behavior which makes the moral high ground argument particularly weak.

These factors do not correlate as highly. And also, everything causes cancer these days. I hear diet soda is off limits now. And besides that, insufficient exercise does not give me the same rate of getting cancer as smoking a pack a day (to my knowledge). And in my experience people don't generally purposely skip exercise (as an example) knowing this might cause them to get cancer. The line for what causes cancer is pretty blurry. The line for what causes drug addiction is not (its drugs). (as you pointed out). I was oversimplifying the issue for, well, simplicity.

But yes, I agree with you. That does not mean that society has thought this out.

 

[RogueBanana]

These factors do not correlate as highly. And also, everything causes cancer these days. I hear diet soda is off limits now. And besides that, insufficient exercise does not give me the same rate of getting cancer as smoking a pack a day (to my knowledge). And in my experience people don't generally purposely skip exercise (as an example) knowing this might cause them to get cancer. The line for what causes cancer is pretty blurry. The line for what causes drug addiction is not (its drugs). (as you pointed out). I was oversimplifying the issue for, well, simplicity.

But yes, I agree with you. That does not mean that society has thought this out.

I mean,

Lack of exercise and poor diet are known to increase several different types of cancer risk by an extremely significant amount.

I've known people to use the moral high ground argument against obese people (just eat less, you don't deserve surgery/therapy/counseling/training)

 

[tarheelpenner]

I mean,

Lack of exercise and poor diet are known to increase several different types of cancer risk by an extremely significant amount.

I've known people to use the moral high ground argument against obese people (just eat less, you don't deserve surgery/therapy/counseling/training)

But is not going to the gym the same thing as smoking cigarettes? Maybe. But it's certainly not viewed the same way.

 

[cactusman]

But is not going to the gym the same thing as smoking cigarettes? Maybe. But it's certainly not viewed the same way.

Really /r/fatpeoplehate was just doing the world a service /s.

 

[mwsapphire]

I mean,

Lack of exercise and poor diet are known to increase several different types of cancer risk by an extremely significant amount.

I've known people to use the moral high ground argument against obese people (just eat less, you don't deserve surgery/therapy/counseling/training)

Somehow hatred of obese people angers me even more ( we all need to eat, so getting over an eating addiction is complicated. Also, since we all eat, developing an eating addiction is also not that hard). Both are awful, but somehow the one obese people really, really upsets me, because being obese can also be linked to being poor and not being able to eat much besides fast food.

 

[tarheelpenner]

Somehow hatred of obese people angers me even more ( we all need to eat, so getting over an eating addiction is complicated. Also, since we all eat, developing an eating addiction is also not that hard). Both are awful, but somehow the one obese people really, really upsets me, because being obese can also be linked to being poor and not being able to eat much besides fast food.

I'm going to be devil's advocate again here. It can be, but it can also be linked to moderation.

I read a study somewhere that said that on average, people with healthy BMI's and people who were obese ate fast food with approximately the same frequency. It was just about the amount they were eating. I will try to find it.

 

[cactusman]

Somehow hatred of obese people angers me even more ( we all need to eat, so getting over an eating addiction is complicated. Also, since we all eat, developing an eating addiction is also on to con not that hard). Both are awful, but somehow the one obese people really, really upsets me, because being obese can also be linked to being poor and not being able to eat much besides fast food.

And because there is no medical reason to use tobacco, but certain conditions and medications can make weight loss even more difficult.

 

[OchemOficionado]

I'm going to be devil's advocate again here. It can be, but it can also be linked to moderation.

I read a study somewhere that said that on average, people with healthy BMI's and people who were obese ate fast food with approximately the same frequency. It was just about the amount they were eating. I will try to find it.

Yeah, don't play Devil's Advocate with this one. Haha. There's too much evidence that correlate food insecurity, food deserts and low income with obesity.

(And also moderation of course. Education too.)

 

[tarheelpenner]

Yeah, don't play Devil's Advocate with this one. Haha. There's too much evidence that correlate food insecurity, food deserts and low income with obesity.

(And also moderation of course. Education too.)

Obviously. Also, I take back what I said. I found the article, and it was composed of >90% white participants.

I fell into their trap, and I am ashamed.

 

[ksumm4]

View attachment 218488 This kind of ignorant crap pisses me off to no end.
Spotted in my news feed A minute ago.

Who TF do these people think they are that they can suggest lifesaving emergency medicine be not worth the expense simply because they don't like the victim's illness?

Thoughts?

I am pretty sure most people posted that in response to the addicts calling addiction a disease. It is not necessarily comparing the drugs, their price, or anything related to treatment. Its saying cancer patients have a disease but addicts do not.

 

[astrostellar]

The most frustrating thing about this post to me is that it implies that Narcan is on the same level as chemo as far as "treatment." Narcan doesn't treat drug addiction. It literally keeps someone from dying when they OD. Chemotherapy cures (or is supposed to cure ) someone's cancer. They aren't even comparing chemo to treating drug addicts. They're comparing chemo to a substance that saves someone from dying, like a defibrillator.

It just shows such a serious moral devaluation of addicts. It really sickens me.

(Also, who TF made this image? Why is chemo in quotes? This thing is a mess, grammatically. INTO THE BIN WITH IT.)

 

[cactusman]

I am pretty sure most people posted that in response to the addicts calling addiction a disease. It is not necessarily comparing the drugs, their price, or anything related to treatment. Its saying cancer patients have a disease but addicts do not.

There are already a bunch of posts ITT discussing the faults in this moral high ground argument.