NP Rank:
Liberty demands we allow people to make "bad" choices
It is refreshing to read a rational point of view on the subject of homelessness, addiction and the DTES. It is particularly impactful coming from a family member of someone who chose to live and die that lifestyle. It shows that ultimately once all the government and non-government agencies offer these people help we, as a society that respects individual liberties, must stand back and let THEM choose. Regardless of how we might view the lifestyle choices others make we have to be respectful of them as individuals and let them make those choices for themselves.
Families of street people are collateral damage Daphne Bramham, Vancouver SunPublished: Friday, January 02, 2009Shannon Barker is long past feeling guilty or ashamed when a street person like Tracey dies in a fire, huddled under a tarp and shopping cart in downtown Vancouver.
It's politically incorrect and anathema on the cocktail circuit. But Barker believes deaths like Tracey's are "just tragedies, inescapable, unpreventible tragedies."
"We can't save everyone," she told me in an e-mail. "We tried to save our brother, as did the Salvation Army, the First United Church, the Maple Ridge Treatment Centre, the Downtown Eastside Residents Association and every other organization run by generous souls down on East Hastings, all to no avail.
"Here's the deal, he didn't want to be saved. Where do we find the arrogance to suggest we know what is the best way for someone else to live, or how someone else chooses to die? Who do we think we are? Is our lifestyle the only real one? The only valuable one? The only absolutely right one?
"When we asked my brother why he was so determined to stay living on the streets, leave his condo, well-paying job and son, why he wouldn't let us 'drag' him out of the gutter, he said: 'I love it here, it is the first place I have really belonged, these are my friends. I don't have to worry about a mortgage payment, or pay a utility bill, or even shop for clothes. They are all supplied to me by the various agencies. Why would I ever leave?'"
It had never occurred to Barker that for her brother and others street life is a deliberate choice made regardless of the collateral damage it inflicts on family and friends.
Barker says that in addition to a loving and supportive family, her brother had countless opportunities for government-supported detox, rehab and mental health support offered by dozens of different non-profit agencies. Repeatedly he chose none of the above "racing by every exit ramp with incredible speed and determination."
Just a few days before Christmas, her brother signed a do-not-resuscitate order in the critical care unit of Burnaby General Hospital, surrounded by doctors, caring and supportive nurses and his family, all working to ensure he dies with no pain.
"I don't feel society has let him or any of these people down, there are just limits as to what we can do. So, this Christmas, I am once again desperately trying to support my 84-year-old mother who is dying on the inside, while my brother is dying on the outside, hoping like hell that she won't follow him to the grave.
"I suggest that no matter what you do, what you write, what the government does or spends, what programs the church or anyone else sets up, some of these people will die, and in a way we are uncomfortable with. Their deaths will be a tragedy for them, their loved ones and society as a whole. My brother is one we could not save."
Barker wrote in response to a column in which I wrote that in a wealthy city, province and country like ours, we should be ashamed that people are left to die on the street.
"Where is our support, our story?" she asked on behalf of her family and others.
It's here and it ends as her eloquent and moving e-mail did with Reinhold Niebuhr's prayer as a caution to all who want to end homelessness.
"God, give us the grace to accept with serenity the things that cannot be changed, courage to change the things which should be changed and the wisdom to distinguish the one from the other."
dbramham@vancouversun.com



Most RecentMost Recommended Comments (6)
at 18:10 on January 4th, 2009
I fully agree with the title, however I would not not said that a bad choice does not deserve redemption and yes society is in part responsible as well as the individual.
Some bad choices involve mental illnesses and abuse as well as physical handicaps. It is not that easy nor clear cut as portrayed here.
at 18:21 on January 4th, 2009
Thanks for the comments. I would clairify that my opinions are only intended to reflect on the choices of those people who are not mentally disabled. The mentally disabled (if honestly diagnosed) are, be definition, not capable of making properly informed choices for themselves.
at 10:36 on January 5th, 2009
There in lies the problem...
how can one assume whether a person is mentally disabled, or just stubborn?
Do we allow all to suffer because a percentage are able minded and acvtually choose to live in the streets?
To fault the way of what is good is always the best policy.
Try to help all of them, and the so called "mentally fit" who insist on living in the streets will return to doing so.
But then one has to question, whether someone who is truly mentally fit and of sound mind really choose to live in the streets?
at 10:55 on January 5th, 2009
I do not believe in religion. I think people who do are clearly deluded but I do not reccomend that we force them into de-programming and make them accept the scientific explanation of the world (in spite of the millions and millions that have been killed in the name of religion). Liberty must be the primary concern.....respect for the individual and their choices.
at 09:59 on January 6th, 2009
I don't think anyone is insinuating religion, or "deprogramming" but rather help for those with mental problems.
As far as killing in the name of religion, people throughout time have killed in the name of many things...
Care and concern for the homeless is not removing liberties, but an attempt to preserve humanity, or what's left of it.
Which is more respectful to an individual...helping one who is in need of food, shelter and medical assistance, or walking by insisting it's their right to die in the streets?
at 17:34 on January 11th, 2009
Respect for individuals' liberties and their informed choices is one of the most important things that define a free society. What middle class elites think of those choices and their implications are irrelevent. People make decisions all the time that involve the risk of possible death (car racing, mountain climbing, hunger striking, defending their country in times of war, smoking, driving a car, eating an unhealthy diet.....) we would never think of taking THOSE choices away. What we are really talking about here is a class bias where the ruling elite think THEIR lifestyle should be inforced on the minority who choose otherwise and that only the risks their class take are acceptable risk tradeoffs. They do not try to understand the thought of others just try to change them into mirrors of themselves. It makes them more comfortable. That is wrong in my opinion.