Although I agree that Lori had no control over what Megan decided to do, I do have to disagree with a major point of your post. Megan had depression, and that severely reduced her ability to make rational decisions, especially in situations of extreme stress. As someone who has severe depression myself, I know that when I would have a mental breakdown, before my years of treatment, I would have very little to no control over what I did in that period of time. For someone to be aware of this and exploit it is inexcusable. We can put a gun in front of a toddler, and sure, the toddler doesn't HAVE to play with it... But if you know that the toddler doesn't understand the consequences and you do it anyway, who is responsible for their death? Lori Drew cannot say that she did not mean to cause harm in this case.
Unfortunately enough, people do need to be protected from themselves because people do choose to make poor decisions. Where to draw the line is debatable (I personally think that freedoms are wonderful things to have and that restrictions should only be placed in cases where there is an immediate and present danger) but if we allowed everyone in America to own nuclear weapons on the basis that they are responsible for what they choose to do with them is utter nonsense because there are people that cannot be trusted to make a rational decision with such power.
To blame the victim after everything she suffered through is quite cruel. I hope that her family and friends can find some sort of peace after all is said and done.
Too bad pirating something you never would have bought does about $0 in economic damages. The damage isn't economic. The **AA does the PR damage to themselves with their frivolous lawsuits.
I agree with you in the sense that we can't provide cutting-edge healthcare to every member of society as that would greatly increase the cost for taxpayers. However, I have to disagree with your analogy- There are significant differences between the healthcare system and the welfare system that make the analogy flawed.
Specifically, you referred to full healthcare as comparable to "filet mignon" welfare. The issue is, both a simple, hearty soup and an exquisite 5-course meal will sustain a person for a period of time, whereas when it comes to medical illnesses oftentimes there are only a handful (or less) of treatments that are reliable enough to be performed. So, in essence, one has limited options when it comes to the bottom-line cost of healthcare, whereas in a welfare program costs can be cut by providing basic foods.
That being said, experimental procedures (which tend to cost more than reliable procedures for certain illnesses) and "cosmetic" (for lack of a better word) drugs, such as Viagra, should NEVER be covered by any federal plan as they are not necessary to survival.
Every person DOES have a right to treatment that will save their life. And as we are at a point where people lack the income to provide for that basic need, something needs to be changed.
Slashdot Mirror
Although I agree that Lori had no control over what Megan decided to do, I do have to disagree with a major point of your post. Megan had depression, and that severely reduced her ability to make rational decisions, especially in situations of extreme stress. As someone who has severe depression myself, I know that when I would have a mental breakdown, before my years of treatment, I would have very little to no control over what I did in that period of time. For someone to be aware of this and exploit it is inexcusable. We can put a gun in front of a toddler, and sure, the toddler doesn't HAVE to play with it... But if you know that the toddler doesn't understand the consequences and you do it anyway, who is responsible for their death? Lori Drew cannot say that she did not mean to cause harm in this case. Unfortunately enough, people do need to be protected from themselves because people do choose to make poor decisions. Where to draw the line is debatable (I personally think that freedoms are wonderful things to have and that restrictions should only be placed in cases where there is an immediate and present danger) but if we allowed everyone in America to own nuclear weapons on the basis that they are responsible for what they choose to do with them is utter nonsense because there are people that cannot be trusted to make a rational decision with such power. To blame the victim after everything she suffered through is quite cruel. I hope that her family and friends can find some sort of peace after all is said and done.
I agree with you in the sense that we can't provide cutting-edge healthcare to every member of society as that would greatly increase the cost for taxpayers. However, I have to disagree with your analogy- There are significant differences between the healthcare system and the welfare system that make the analogy flawed. Specifically, you referred to full healthcare as comparable to "filet mignon" welfare. The issue is, both a simple, hearty soup and an exquisite 5-course meal will sustain a person for a period of time, whereas when it comes to medical illnesses oftentimes there are only a handful (or less) of treatments that are reliable enough to be performed. So, in essence, one has limited options when it comes to the bottom-line cost of healthcare, whereas in a welfare program costs can be cut by providing basic foods. That being said, experimental procedures (which tend to cost more than reliable procedures for certain illnesses) and "cosmetic" (for lack of a better word) drugs, such as Viagra, should NEVER be covered by any federal plan as they are not necessary to survival. Every person DOES have a right to treatment that will save their life. And as we are at a point where people lack the income to provide for that basic need, something needs to be changed.