Thats one rich bitch

Mental illness linked to hospital stays by homeless
Updated Thu. Aug. 30 2007 9:59 AM ET

CTV.ca News Staff

Mental disorders account for more than half of the hospital stays among the homeless in Canada, says a new report from the Canadian Institute for Health Information (CIHI).

In 2005-2006, the study found that mental health disorders accounted for 52 per cent of acute care hospitalizations in Canada (outside Quebec).

Additionally, 35 per cent of homeless people who visited selected emergency departments (EDs), mostly in Ontario, were treated for mental and behavioural related disorders.

That figure is much higher than the 3 per cent of the general population who were treated for similar disorders during the same time period.

The most common problem that EDs dealt with when treating homeless people was substance abuse, accounting for 54 per cent of visits.

Psychotic disorders, such as schizophrenia, accounted for 20 per cent of visits.

The most common reason for ED visits for the general public is to be treated for injury and poisonings (25 per cent).

Among the general population, the most common reason for hospitalization is for pregnancy and childbirth (13 per cent).

Dr. Jennifer Zelmer, vice president of Research and Analysis at CIHI, said the findings show that the situation with homeless patients is much different than among other Canadians.

"People who are homeless are much more likely -- if they do end up in a hospital either overnight or in an emergency room -- to be there because of mental and behavioural disorders," Zelmer told CTV's Canada AM on Thursday.

"Among the general population it doesn't make the top five reasons."

The report also notes many factors -- such as housing, income and the ability to cope -- that have been shown to contribute to the onset or duration of homelessness.

"People with severe mental illness may experience limited housing, employment and income options," Dr. Elizabeth Votta, an author of the report, says in the findings.

"On the other hand, people who are homeless tend to report higher stress, lower self-worth, less social support and different coping strategies, factors that are associated with depressive symptoms, substance abuse, suicidal behaviours and poor self-rated health."

What I am inferring is that you believe that people are obliged to help the needy. I do not believe that.

having a philosophy about something doesn't require [you]* to do something about it.

I believe that we are all our brothers' keepers. We can not, in reality, of course, care for all. But at least we should try to each do our bit to help each other - whatever you can, little bits are allright. Just because as fellow townsmen, or countrymen, or people of this world - whichever - we belong together, and we should have each others' back.

No. Not at all. I don't believe Canada should be engaged in war, but I'm not going to do anything about it except not sign up.

I don't feel obligated to help anyone else. If I do so, it's because I choose to. "Obligation" is not a big part of my life. And I could choose to help one person rather than a group; that's my option... and my philosophy hasn't changed.

Your philosophy is right for you and not right for me. It's just a difference of opinion and one is not better than the other.

Montana wrote:

He eventually went into a detox, then to a halfway house

Where do you think the funding and staffing for those facilities came from?

Montana wrote:

My father was an alcoholic who drank for several years, even ending up on the streets for a while. He said that it was his choice to be there and he refused all the help that was offered to him to get him off the streets.

He eventually went into a detox, then to a halfway house, then back home to us, where he went back to work, started his own business within 2 years and was making over $100,000 a year within 7 years.

Cheers dad :-D

Thats wonderful. That makes him one of those heroes I talked about! Someone who can do that, has shown enormous fortitude. Cause it's hard, to pull that off.

Most homeless people dont have the strength or ability anymore to pull that off. Not cause they're lazy, but because alcoholism or addiction or the paranoia of streetlife or the mental problems that got them on the street in the first place took them too far down the river.

Your dad did a great feat. Doesnt mean that one shouldnt help those who have not managed to achieve such a feat.

Hey, I think that people, whether we agree with their decisions or not,
have the right to leave their money to whomever they want.

No one is "entitled" to another person's money.

I would not have done what Leona Helmsley did,

but it is not for me to judge what she did.

Quote:

Hell yeah it's for us to judge.

Well, u can have any opinion that u want.

Quote:

It's statistically factual that in her lifetime she possessed
many times what a person needs to live comfortably.

So WHAT ?????

It was hers to enjoy, as she chose.
That 's what it means to live in a free country.

Quote:

Many people could have benefitted from the money she gave to her dog.

THAY had no right to her property,
any more than she had a right to theirs.

Quote:

No mercy for the mean and rich.

OK:
No mercy for the POOR !

How 's THAT ??

David

Then, in the category Them's The Breaks..

Phoenix32890 wrote:

What I am inferring is that you believe that people are obliged to help the needy. I do not believe that.

Quote:

Yep.
That sounds about right..
I mean, that's what's at the heart of this kind of discussion in the end, isnt it?

It IS.

Quote:

Good to see it just out in the open,
rather than hiding behind charitative-sounding
"better teach them how to fish" stories.

Yeah.
Fish stories r no good.

Quote:

3 out of 4 times (or whatever), that's exactly what's hiding behind the "better teach them how to fish"
kind of argument, IMO.
It's not really about some desire to help in a more constructive way.
It's about believing that one doesnt owe his fellow man anything, period.

YES.
Well said; not a damned nickel, Nimh.

Quote:

Margaret Thatcher once said:
"There is no such thing as society.
There are individual men and women, and there are families."

Yes.
She is most eloquent,
and a good logician.

Another way to put it,
is that individual citizens, by associating with one another,
create society, that society is their little baby and the individuals are its parents, who nourish it,
and to whom society must look up, as looking up to gods.

Quote:

I believe that's where we part ways.

I disagree.
I believe that we are all our brothers' keepers.

I dispute u.

I challenge u to prove any merit to your allegation,
to wit:
from whence springs any such duty to keep our brothers ??

I did not agree to that.

Are u just telling us of your gut feeling,
the way u choose your favorite color ?
or do u claim any basis in logic for your assertion
that we are all our brothers' keepers ?

If we are our brothers' keepers,
do we have AUTHORITY over our brothers so that we can accomplish the job ?
If so,
from whence did we acquire such authority, Nimh ??

If my brothers don 't take their vitamins,
and if thay eat too much red meat,
do I have authority to ram the vitamins down their throats,
and to rob them of their meat ??
Please explain, Nimh.

Quote:

We can not, in reality, of course, care for all.
But at least we should try to each do our bit to help each other - whatever you can, little bits are allright.

What is this " should " stuff, Nimh ?
By WHAT criterion should we do it ?
What is the SOURCE of this obligation ??

Quote:

Just because as fellow townsmen, or countrymen, or people of this world - whichever - we belong together,
and we should have each others' back.

Do u have evidence
that we " belong together " ??

Do I belong together with someone who I dislike ??

U seem to have a lot of unsupported theories, Nimh.
Where do u stand on leprechauns ?

David

Quote:

I believe that we are all our brothers' keepers. We can not, in reality, of course, care for all. But at least we should try to each do our bit to help each other - whatever you can, little bits are allright. Just because as fellow townsmen, or countrymen, or people of this world - whichever - we belong together, and we should have each others' back.

I don't believe that we are our brother's keepers. Personally, I do believe though, that if I am able, and I can do something
to make another's life a little better, I will certainly do it.

But I don't believe that it is an obligation, simply a choice.

Quote:

it is a feeling and a belief, David.
There is no need for "proof"

like if I feel that red is the best color
and I believe that 1950s DOO WOP is the best music
that is OK, as long as I DON 'T enforce these beliefs
by extortions from my fellow citizens

Nimh makes it sound like he is endeavoring
to extort conduct and that people can be held in default
of their failures to be together, to be our brothers' keepers,
and to have one another's backs, without our having consented to these duties.

I take EXCEPTION to these duties.

I deny that those duties exist.

Quote:

I share that belief that we should have each others' backs with nimh and, i assume, gargamel.
And it comforts me that there are many people out there who think alike.

Dag,
what if your neighbor interferes in your life,
rearranging it, and he JUSTIFIES it, when challenged by YOU,
by saying that he was defending your back,
without your knowledge nor your consent ??

Have u considered the possibility
that the 3 of u might have some unspoken differences
of opinion as to how these theories shud be applied ?
Cud this result in some practical difficulties of execution ??

Quote:

Just like villages used to take care of their orphans, idiots, beggars and poor, so the larger societies have to today. They have to fulfill the functions of the village on a larger scale, since we have outgrown the village life.

Shrug, it mostly does anyway, no matter what you or I believe.

Yeah.
Thay do that.