i really like the model i read about once about supporting in and dumping out. can think of it like picturing a bullseye or a donut
the idea that the patient, the one who is sick, the victim, the one going thru it, has nothing put on them. they are in the center of the circle. like the core of a planet. cos they are the core of their planet. immediate loved ones are the next layer. mantle. the mantle, also deeply affected, also stressin, should relieve that pressure and seek relief thru the crust, which is even further away from ground zero core.
when someone is sick or wounded, their wishes in regard to their own care is paramount because they know themselves best. they are the ones at the center of "going thru it"
it is critically important then, that they are the expert in navigating this. where they feel called to move towards, let them go towards it. they are responding to themselves, their own body's calling. that is how i see it, that is how my dad saw it when it came to my mom and her diagnosis. his job to him in his eyes was to let her do whatever she wanted to get better while shielding her from any peanut gallery rudely trying to tell her otherwise as if they would have to suffer the consequences if she died.
when people have come to me for advice, when they verbally actually say they are asking for my opinion re: health, i am always redirecting it back to them. as in: i have been listening to you. if you need me to tell you the points you have made in a more cogent way about what you've told me you care about, i will. if you are asking for general best practices re: cdc re: consensus of mainstream health, i will. if you are asking for best herbal practices i know, and i am no expert here, i will. but ultimately, all this is up to you, the patient.
this is how i treated the vaccine topic re: covid irl. anyone who called me on the phone who when they called were anti-vax, left that call as anti-vax as they were before they called. they simply had more context, nuance, and considerations. i basically simply broadened scope and tethered it better. as in: as a suggestion, this might be better grounds to make an argument if you face challengers being rude and trying to strip you of your own bodily autonomy.
i do not believe someone's personal health choices should be strongarmed unless* cos there is always nuance. as in, typhoid mary. this nuance deserves the deepest respect of addressing and im not in the position currently to write an essay.
private health and public health exist in tension. tradeoffs or transcending to a deeper principle.
if someone knows they have hiv can they go to a bloodbank to donate blood with the wish of everyone joining them on hiv positive status? should that be illegal? is prohibiting someone from donating to a bloodbank under any circumstance discrimination? i think most people would agree it is very antisocial to center your personal wish to infect people over someone else's autonomy to choose ~not to be infected when they go to a bloodbank to get clean blood during their own health emergency. i think it is safe to rest in the assumption that someone who needs to use a bloodbank is inherently requesting blood free of pathogens. as in: if someone gets into a carwreck or is a casualty of war so they are not conscious, when brought in thru the er, during triage, i think it is safe to assume the inherent request is if a blood transfusion is needed, that the blood has been screened, that it is clear of pathogens, that it is considered "clean".
however, there are always exceptions. maybe one day a patient arrives unconscious with a medical card that reads: gimme that hiv+ blood please. i got this arthur ashe thing going on. in homage to him. load me up let's go.
nostr:nevent1qqspzzps268ckux7kcwch6fe9x90yyufn7vafkf92r9hew2rn8ja6ds0jgx9r
