Acknowledgement And Assumption Of Risk And Medical Consent Form: Fill & Download for Free

None at all.I voted not to leave.In the context that the Referendum was held, I would have had to vote to leave, unconditionally. Despite Cameron saying he would stay on, he was never going to - this was acknowledged by those running the Vote Leave campaign prior to kick off - in the event of a leave win, I was pretty confident that I’d also get a harder right Government that I didn’t want, need, or ask for, and I was already unhappy with the Government I already had.I was interested in the campaigns, I was certainly interested to see what the Leave campaign would put forward for how we would leave, and what leave might look like, even though I knew that didn’t necessarily imply how a leave win would be implemented.I think the way I saw the leave campaign was ( - in David Davis’ words) a statement of intent, but one contingent on i) exerting enough pressure on a PM, which would be carried through the HoC or ii) having one of their MPs become PM, and then commanding a majority in the House, whilst keeping the main players on a unified approach.I was also curious about the Remain campaign. It became clear quite quickly it would be a Conservative led strategy, and having experienced the Scottish Indy Ref - the original Project Fear, the promises ( - this time backed by Government) in the event of Scotland voting ‘No’, and then the ‘forgeting’ of those promises to Scotland once the vote came in - and then the London Mayoral Elections, in which they tried to target Sadiq Khan as a Muslim, and Londoners delivered a ‘get bent’ to Zac Goldsmith, well, I was interested to see if they’d caught on that the tide had turned against strategy based on fearmongering. As it turned out, they hadn’t.Rightly, or wrongly then, I was interested in the campaigns, from a place of indifference. I wanted to see how they would behave, given that these were empty shell, limited lifetime campaign groups, with no real accountability during the 10 weeks, or, indeed, afterwards.Eurosceptism has been around since the seventies - right across the political, demographic and social spectrum - and I recognise that the holding of the Referendum was the result of years and decades of pressure and campaigning by Eurosceptics of all persuasions.Given the an opportunity to vote to leave, naturally, Eurosceptics would. A vote to leave was never going to be a vote for Vote Leave, though I did expect that the politicians aligned with that group would try to claim that mandate for themselves.How much correlation or causation is attached to either the leave or remain campaign we’ll never know.What I learnt was this - quite how much it could suck to be the electorate.Lately, it has definitely sucked to be the electorate during any election campaign, but the combination of no accountability from the main representatives, lack of knowledge about what would happen next, and the absolute lack of debate ( - though bizarrely, there was mass congratulation the whole time about how great the debating was) really optimised the sucking, and blasted it to a whole new level.I believe this to be true - people, the public, regular people like me - make complex decisions every day. We do. In everyday life, we take in masses of information, frequently contradictory, and weigh it up, and apply it to the circumstances - our own, our children’s, our family’s, our community’s and so on.I have no time for the man on the street is too stupid to vote, which I definitely heard, outside of Quora, post result. Have these people met the man on the street? They should, they really should. And if they think the man on the street is stupid - met, or otherwise - I don’t know why they haven’t been protesting our judicial system all their lives. A jury consists of twelve of the man on the street, not only are they considered peers - implying that everyone, or no-one, is stupid - but, as a potential defendent, which we all could be, these men on the street can reach a decision that determines whether we, ourselves, ever get to enjoy the streets freely again.Just because both campaigns used misleading/ambigious information does not mean that anyone fell for it. Though the intention to mislead is telling in its own right, prioritising the desire for votes by any means and embodying the kind of communication with, and attitide towards, the electorate that is regularly standard practise.In other words, it says more about them than about us.Two examples of complex decision making in British lifeExample One - Jury ServiceThe public members of the jury must not be biased, each person in the jury is unimportant as an individual, the ideal being that any 12 people would reach the same verdict based on the same trial.The cases for the prosecution and defence are put forward.This is evidence-based rhetoric - the defendent is guilty/innocent … and here’s why, with witnesses, evidence and so forth …2. Cross examination of evidence and witnesses.Is the forensic expert really an expert? Is there another explanation for a witness’s account? Are any witnesses potentially biased or compromised?3. Closing speeches by the prosecution and defence - summing up - drawing together their respective cases, further informed by the cross examinations.4. The judge gives the jury their instructions.5. The jury - based on all they’ve seen and heard- discuss the trial, and try to come to a verdict. The verdict is an evidence-based decision.The individual juror ought to, in an ideal world, make the same decision as any other juror would, given the same information and sitting through the same trial.Example Two - An Ideal Medical AppointmentThe patient is extremely biased - they will take the information, and make a decision based on their personal values - it matters because it’s them.The patient has a medical condition that indicates treatment should be offered (evidence-based medicine).The doctor outlines the options and risks/benefit of each, as appropriate to the individual patient’s overall health.The doctor offers an opinion for that patient, based on evidence-based medicine.The patient takes all that information and applies it to themselves, their values, personal priorities and context.They have the opportunity to elicit further information, ask questions, and iterate towards either giving or witholding informed consent to treatment.As long as the patient has capacity to make a decision - which is practically every man on the street - it is theirs to make.The doctor has given an evidence-based opinion, from which the patient can make an evidence-based decision about their body and health.Two patients - clinically identical - in an ideal world recieve the same information about the risks and benefits associated with each treatment option offered by a doctor.They do not necessarily make the same decision.Although the evidence-based clinical information from the doctor is the same, they have different lives, different priorities, different beliefs and values, and are calibrated differently for their perception of risk. Abstract concepts like trust, hope, dignity, forebearance, are relevant in this context.The process of decision-making by a member of the electorate takes place within a system that is a mish-mash of the two. The balancing of the personal and societal, the bias of information given - political campaigns are, after all, partisan - the reliability of that information and the people putting it forward, the parties, the politicians, the media, various special interest groups and political strategists.Politics, and those within it, must be capable of seeing the system and their role in it, from the perspective of the electorate, who have a decision to make.The voter lacks (mostly) experience, professional knowledge, which makes them vulnerable to a lack of integrity. As patients, as jurors, the outcomes, when the process is compromised, are more obvious.Looking at both examples of systems designed to fulfill a purpose - decision making - themes emerge. Both the system itself, and those who have professional parts to play in it, have to have integrity, for the person making a decision - the juror, the patient - to fulfill their purpose - justice, personal health and well-being.Imagine the following -Your GP diagnoses you with high blood pressure. They then send you away for a month, having given your contact details to pharmaceutical companies who make blood pressure medications. You then get bombarded by their marketing departments for the next four weeks, until you have a follow up appointment where you have to tell the GP which medication you want them prescribe.An ‘expert’ forensic witness takes the stand for the defence. On cross examination, they answer any question put to them with ‘that’s wrong’, ‘the books are wrong’, ‘all the other forensic experts are wrong’ …The prosecution barrister deliberately introduces hearsay, which makes the defendent look really bad. They know that there will be an objection, with the words stricken from the record, but they are out there now, the jury has heard them, and they imply that the defendent has committed the same serious crime several times, but had gotten away with it. Those words are persuasive, you know you should disregard them, but still, you can imagine those previous implied victims, as a mirror of the alleged victim on the stand in front of you, who cannot speak for crying and shaking.You are seriously ill. A doctor tells you that unless you have treatment X, your odds of survival are low. You get a second opinion, where you’re told that if you take treatment X you’ll likely die. From that, you need to make a decision.Those scenarios are ridiculous and unacceptable. They are unethical.If that is true for decision-making in medicine - what happens to your body - the judicial system - the liberty of your body - then shouldn’t it be the same in politics, the kind of country in which your body lives?The system, and those within it, must be capable of seeing the system and their role in it, from the perspective of the decision maker. The decision maker lacks (mostly) experience, professional knowledge, which makes them vulnerable to a lack of integrity.Which means that their needs are paramount and they require -Clear differentiation between evidence and opinion.Honesty - until we all become mind readers there’s no way to know whether someone says what they believe to be true, or intentionally misdirects away from what they know to be true, by omission, deceit or obfuscation.A lack of self-interest from those they rely on for information. Partisan information is not the same as misleading/manipulative information.Enough clear, unbiased information to reach their own conclusion. Agreement with any opinion put forward, should be a product of their own thought processes and arrived at independently. They should be in a position to give informed consent to agree.Information should be presented in a form which can be understood by the layman. There should be opportunity to clarify understanding and ask further questions, and/or have them anticipated on their behalf.The focus should be on the process, not the outcome. The decision, a by-product of having run its course.There should be full engagement by all participants with the purpose behind the process. What is technically allowable, or what is worth a go, but not in the interest of the decision maker, undermines the integrity of the whole system. The professional who indulges in hearsay, knowing it cannot be unheard in order to colour the process to favour their own personal interests, does so cynically.Political campaigns to me are a mish-mash of the two, and do not properly serve the ends of either example - not because the man on the street is incapable, but because there is information they cannot access, unless there is proper debate- the cross-examination - but also that omission, ambiguity about the intentions of those campaigning, and the reliability of those seeking endorsement, undermines informed consent to their case.As a strategy, not answering questions, not providing clarification, a refusal to acknowledge contrary evidence, an assumption that the electorate cannot handle complexity, is contemptuous.If democracy is Government by consent, then that consent should be informed - the electorate does not lack capacity - as much for the environment our bodies live in, as for our bodies themselves.We can all be set up to receive information, but if the signal is patchy, with interference by design, then the transmission is compromised or corrupted, as a feature, not a bug.And there we have the joy of the leave and remain campaigns.As if we were all forced to watch an endless game of Rock, Paper, Scissors where each player denied the other had a hand, accused their palm of being biased, the fingers scaremongering. Which is a shit spectator sport.The audience-held-hostage can only conclude that both players are arseholes, and i) they don’t know the rules or ii) don’t care for the rules iii) have contempt for the viewer and iv) might not know what a rock and/or scissors and/or paper actually is. Which doubles down to i) ignorance ii) claiming to play one game whilst playing another iii) self interest over public service iv) incompetence.Ask the audience who they think won, and whichever one they choose, they are forced to award a hollow victory. The irony being that the winner will attribute it to their skill and strategy in rock, paper, scissors, if they are oblivious - or would rather win, by any means, at any cost, including that of the game itself.Playing the right game doesn't matter. Looking like, pretending to play, is fine - what's important is optimising the chances of getting their mitts on the trophy.The electorate can only voted based on the information they are offered, their choices are restricted. They cannot make politicians debate, they cannot make them provide unbiased/reliable statistics, they cannot make them act in the public, not party, not selfish interest. They cannot punish such behaviour at the ballot box, not when everyone's doing it.If there had been no campaigning prior to the vote, we would have been denied the information those campaigns put out. Which wouldn’t have been a loss.In terms of making an informed decision, we may as well not have had them. I suspect that what the campaigns did do was to get people out to vote, and that the turnout affected the result far more than any persuasion to leave or remain from the two sides in the debate.Thanks for the A2A, Clare.

The perceived benefits not outweighing the perceived risks and harms.I. Aversion To Antipsychotics Is Most RationalThe simplest thing to say here is that the use of antipsychotics would make most any drug-educated person both skeptical and apprehensive. Volunteering for a chemical lobotomy is a sign of either desperation or not knowing what you’re in for. Patients, especially those using such drugs chronically, know better than most a variety of the horrible effects which commonly occur. The less lucky patients are more familiar with the less common and potentially even more horrible effects we would all seek to avoid.Using the lowest doses of antipsychotics for the shortest possible periods necessary to achieve particular clinical goals is not strange or a sign of illness, it is generally the only rational response. Surely, not all patients experience the worst of the effects on offer, and a small minority even come out the other side feeling relatively unscathed. However, a key focus here should be that we are fundamentally discussing highly adverse, toxic drugs whose prescribing is centered around causing significant ill health — most particularly, in the nervous system.Of course, the prescribers do not draw patients in with the marketing line “Hey! You! Come here and let us make you seriously ill!” That would not be a very good strategy. Instead, they usually game people by claiming those people are already ill, and that drugs are the solution. Never mind the reality, or the consequences, or how drugs do what they do. But, it is this combination of a poor mental ideology and a dangerous physical approach which most leads to patients quitting antipsychotics. If they were happier taking drugs indefinitely, after all, they would do so!None of this suggests no one can find drug use, especially emergency short-term use, potentially useful or worth the risks or harms it can involve. But, we have to face the disconnect between cultural and institutional expectations and the actual experiences, goals, and priorities of individual patients. Is the proposed plan of drug use getting them where they want to go? Is the paradigm they are taught to put their faith in explaining their experiences and integrating into their own life plans?II. Drug Choices Are Not Made In A VacuumYour question is very interesting because it does not ask about anything other than the individual patients when it is everyone other than the individual patients inventing and manufacturing and marketing and prescribing antipsychotics, and everyone other than the individual patients creating industrial paradigms which guide the application of neurotoxic interventions and lifestyle drugging. We must vitally consider the context in which patient decisions are being made — what is the environment, and what options are being presented for someone to choose between?There are many nuances which can be argued about, such as the clarity of thought involved in decisions about drugging. Problematically, this is not addressed by advocating drug use or non-use, since mental distress and crisis as well as antipsychotic use are both deleterious factors. Systematic evidence is another contentious topic because the vast majority of systematic research is not performed using methodologies capable of informing the everyday decisions patients are making, and psychiatric dogma relies foremost on innuendo rather than fact.So, in order to answer your question, we have to call out the assumption that someone labeled as “schizophrenic” ought to be taking drugs, antipsychotics or otherwise. And, especially the assumption that ‘feeling better’ is not a good reason to consider discontinuation. With most patients finding these drugs more harmful than helpful, non-drug approaches being very successful for a substantial portion of patients and long-term outcomes generally being better with drug non-use than drug use even when matching for the severity of someone’s pre-existing psychosocial difficulties, it is not reasonable to expect us to believe drug use is the default ‘good choice’ here.How patients reason through their discontinuation is a lot more variable, though. Everything from only using drugs to make someone else happy or escape repercussions from realizing that there are serious consequences to drug use to feeling that drug non-use is a viable option at the current point in time can play a role. If we tell someone that they need to use drugs because they don’t feel good and then they don’t feel that way anymore after using drugs, it seems weird to suggest that continuous drug use should be the preference. Why? Because most people can do as well or even better without using those drugs, is why.III. We Can Do BetterThis discussion of drug downsides and cultural perspectives culminates in two important concerns:Most patients do not have the necessary support for making responsible drug decisions, successfully reducing and quitting, or engaging in non-drug therapies and other means of self-betterment which can often lead to a sustained drug-free life. Just because these great possibilities — high quality professional services, constructive approaches that aren’t neurotoxic, and help beyond industrial institutions — exist does not mean everyone knows about them and that they have the access we should all expect.Most patients are lied to about what “schizophrenia” is and means. They are most often told there is some sort of persistent “illness” or “defect” or something of that sort which demands continual drug use for them to continue feeling better than they did before. This is not just bullshit, it is explicitly counter to the evidence. When patients are forced to choose between their immediate sense of wellbeing and a downright dystopian explanation of their overall experiences, many will choose the former even if it lands them in hot water before long.There is no denying that many people drop their prescribed medications, antipsychotics and otherwise. Nor can we ignore the fact that this can have serious, even disastrous consequences. If we are to do a better job, we have to not just understand that drug use is usually more harmful than helpful, we have to address the two points above so that people are in a better position to choose successful paths. We need to empower individuals and build the kinds of communities and support resources which can make the difference between recovery and a lifetime of disability.And, secondly, we need to stop lying to people about their experiences, even if we think it is for their own good. Teaching defeatism and a life that is hopeless without chronic or permanent chemical lobotomization is not a winning strategy. Telling people that they have a disease when that claim has zero scientific validity undermines their ability to make better choices about how to better their own situation and what sort of aid would be most fitting. There is no need for psychiatry to lie to patients about what is going on just to offer assistance or to try making sense of what is going on.ConclusionIf we don’t want patients to quit drugging just because they are starting to feel better, we have to address more than just the drug risks and harms, we have to address the worldviews which compromise their identity and agency, and the lack of quality drug management and informed consent most patients face, and the lack of non-drug support for people who are not uncommonly among the more needing of our societies in their moments of struggle. The question being asked points to an entire spectrum of systemized social and professional failures.And if we want drug cessation to go more productively, we need to facilitate education and accountability — accountability of ideas, of prescribers, and of patients. Most people will not know how to most responsible discontinue psychiatric drugs, and most people will not be aware of the gravity and scope of the risks involved in making dose changes (regardless of how someone is feeling beforehand or why they were using such drugs). One cannot make highly informed decisions about when and how to discontinue without knowledge of the risks and how to manage them.What we know is that the expectations of others can only get someone so far. When social norms conflict with our wellbeing, there can be a breaking point, even if we have no sustainable alternative in sight. If we, as a society or within mainstream professional movements and industries, refuse to build the necessary tools (like understanding and networks of support) to foster appropriate drug use and non-use, the answer to the question being asked here is almost moot.I think everyone can agree that some things are going wrong all too often, but the answer to the “why” here is most often founded in the ways in which institutions are failing these patients. For a discussion of drug cessation or refusal already posted in another answer, I have pasted below from Mark Dunn's answer to Why do schizophrenics sometimes refuse medication? For an address of the concept of “schizophrenia” and where drug decisions intersect with it, an answer not quoted below can be read here: Mark Dunn's answer to Does a schizophrenic be always on medication?In partial summary:The drugs you refer to are usually a terrible thing to experience, and anyone would be wise to question whether it is a good idea to take them.Drugs offer no specific or tactical medical benefit—they do not ‘fix’ anything, they just cause global dysfunction which may or may not be preferable to any given individual.Drugs do not usually result in “successful treatment”, and are also not superior to the alternatives for most would-be patients.Drugs very commonly make things worse for people, or cause entirely new issues, particularly as presently prescribed and managed.Better options exist for most people (if not everyone), and escalating exposure to drugging correlates to worse long-term outcomes, statistically speaking.Sometimes people are okay with using drugs, but not as mainstream dogma demands them to.The risks, potential side effects, and potential gains of drugging are not clearly and honestly delineated for most patients.Many people are unable to live the kind of life they prefer while using drugs such as antipsychotics, even if some of those people say that particular aspects of drugging can be easier or preferable.In greater detail:.Is Drugging Preferable?Toxic, lobotomizing drugs are a terrible thing. That is like asking why some people refuse to get beaten up by gangs, or waterboarded, or have their limbs cut off and experimentally reattached. Drugs cause massive and dangerous dysfunction in the body, and this can result in lasting medical problems or cognitive and psychological difficulties. There is no question that medication can be debilitating, agonizing, or deadly, and that some of the most unfortunate, disabling, or painful drug effects are very common rather than rare or exceptional.Any use of psychiatric drugs is a conscious sacrifice of health and safety for the hope of drug-altered states being preferable to previous or undrugged states. But for many or most people considered “schizophrenic”, the effects of drugs are worse than the difficulties of staying off drugs. This is particularly true when we compare “using drugs” to “using other methods of prevention, intervention, or support” instead of the straw-man “doing nothing at all” position. Notably, the ratio of potential benefits to risks and negative effects can change from one person, situation, and time to another—what is being sacrificed and what can be reasonably hoped as a gain is variable.Something that must be realized is that how others feel about the experiences of someone choosing or refusing drugs comes secondary to whether the suffering of the people potentially being drugged is greater on versus off of drugs. Concepts of “illness” and “drug effectiveness” very rarely account for actual patient goals, values, and life experiences. As soon as we invalidate someone’s self-expression of suffering, the whole idea of beneficial drugging goes out the window because we cannot figure someone who isn’t using drugs to be suffering and require them.If you want to know why a particular someone is refusing drugs, it is best to ask them, in a neutral and constructive manner. They may or may not consider it any of your business, but I think a lot of interesting answers will surface. There are many extremely common problems that make drugging unfeasible, but not everyone experiences the same reactions, feels to lose the same capacities, or stands to gain the same things through drug-induced dysfunction. We are fundamentally talking about persons rather than a monolithic group of people whose ideas and experiences are more or less interchangeable.Ultimately, if drugging was clearly preferable to not drugging, why would so many people try to avoid drugging? It is prolifically claimed, even amongst physicians, “Oh, they just don’t know who they are or how they are feeling without drugs”, forgetting that the topic of discussion is drugs which themselves impair cognition, self-awareness, emotion, and reasoning. Chemical lobotomies are not a form of lucidity, and there is no evidence that someone not taking drugs is innately or most commonly unaware of their potential to create an altered state that some people may find preferable.Is Drugging Effective?Though some people feel that antipsychotics or other drugs were useful as an emergency, short-term measure, most prescribing is sustained long-term and is commonly even alleged to be ‘prophylactic’ in nature. This, of course, almost universally ignores the physical dependence caused by psychiatric drugs and how withdrawal syndromes are termed “relapse” in almost every study ever performed. Even in the clinical trials run specifically to vie for FDA approval, antipsychotic withdrawal symptoms are instead tallied as poor placebo efficacy. Evidence supporting long-term drugging, if one could say it exists at all, is scant, poorly collected, and self-contradictory.Given the current data we have, antipsychotics—particularly when used continuously—appear to heighten how intense and how chronic the so-called “symptoms” of “schizophrenia” tend to be. Most centrally, I refer to ‘psychosis’, but the cognitive, psychological, emotional, and interactive disruptions caused by drugging are oftentimes misattributed to “schizophrenia” or said to be core features of “schizophrenia”. Even the changes in brain morphology caused by drugging are more often said to be “schizophrenia” rather than the results of drugging. How can we understand the potential effectiveness of drug use if researchers are not honestly examining it?Despite the poor quality of the research generally offered up in the praise of drugging, drugging generally makes things worse instead of better even by clinical standards. In light of this failure to show robust, consistent, and risk-effective results, why should someone labeled as “schizophrenic” trust a doctor or treatment plan that usually makes things worse instead of better? To not question the usefulness of drugging under such conditions would be less reasonable, and that truth is not specific or limited to persons labeled “mentally ill”. We need to recognize that what is best for a small minority is not what is best for most, much less everyone—especially when “schizophrenia” is not a specific or accountable category to be placed in anyhow.Is Drugging Useful?Drugs are extremely powerful and can have disabling, deadly, or lasting effects. Their intense actions cause significantly altered states, or outright unconsciousness when the dose is high enough. Enduring dysfunctions, damages, and problems of unknown etiology are the norm with industry-standard use. These drugs are not something you can ‘give a try’ at no present and future risk, and even just the withdrawal syndromes they usually produce can leave someone worse off than they started. Potential benefits do exist, but only for a subset of patients and only under very particular circumstances (which are rarely acknowledged or held to).Drugging usually interferes with key aspects of a happy, productive, self-satisfied life. Not only is drugging usually a partial or complete failure for people labeled as “schizophrenic” (even according to organizations focused on the supposed necessity of drugging, like the American Psychiatric Association), it almost always impedes quality of life and quite often leads to debilitation or long-term impairment. Though the risks are universal, the outcomes are not—some people experience far worse outcomes than others, and this emphasizes the importance of personalized decisionmaking.Part of individualized care is accepting that some people don’t want to drug, or don’t find drugging useful enough to pursue. To erase the relevance of those sentiments is to give up on someone ever “getting better”—we would be saying that the person we wish to help is no longer present and that anything we do to them or ‘for them’ under the guise of being ‘on their behalf’ is unilateral and without cognizance or participation on their part. Either someone has agency or someone is not under treatment, by very definition. The dismissing of legitimate concerns, albeit sometimes expressed in an atypical manner, is one of the most significant cultural and institutional risks encountered by people engaging with a system which has labeled them as “schizophrenic”.Some Additional Concerns“Schizophrenia” is just a label for a variety of experiences which cannot be categorized or addressed in a singular and coherent way. We cannot speak of people as “schizophrenics” because that is not a consistently meaningful or generalizable grouping. There is no objective standard for “schizophrenia”, nor a way to prove or disprove a particular patient being “schizophrenic”. Thus, any measurements of “efficacy” or outcomes or attitudes will not be reflecting any uniform and tangible differences between individuals being spoken of. Likewise, there is no way to objectively argue that someone is misdiagnosed or that they are better off with a different paradigm for addressing their experiences.Even if we established concrete labels, which we refuse to at present, this would still not allow us to speak of all individuals as some mass collective with similar needs, preferences, reactions, and general experiences. Ultimately, there are any number of reasons why some people don’t want to use drugs, or want to use drugs more selectively than others are pressuring them to. This is not unique to psychiatric prescribing, by far, and though almost none of it is due to “lack of insight”, it is possible that at least a few people would prefer to drug if they were in a better position to elect it. The same can be said of rights-violating “involuntary drugging”—while the outcomes are clinically disappointing on average and many people feel abused (particularly when suffering from lasting drug effects), there are also a few people who say they appreciate being given no control over their drug use.Another pertinent factor here is that drugging isn’t cheap—seeing a prescriber regularly, making it to a pharmacy, and paying for drugs, especially if they haven’t gone generic, is oftentimes a substantial cost. Though government assistance and drug discount programs exist, they tend to sacrifice quality and safety for affordability, meaning patients are more likely to be harmed and less likely to be helped. These are logistical as well as financial burdens, and even low-cost or no-cost access can still be non-viable as a lifestyle. That inconsistent access to prescribers and drugs heightens the incidence of withdrawal phenomena, including psychosis, further highlights the point that sometimes (or perhaps most often) non-use is better than intermittent use.

Being assertive doesn’t mean being an asshole.2. Women don’t have to live a conservative Christian lifestyle just because it fits your moral compass.Women should be free to choose whatever career, life, and/or lifestyle interests them, without discriminatory attitudes and practices of any kind, and from anyone. They are our sisters, our mothers, our daughters and nieces. Women are our partners, in life, work, and in our common human goals of survival and progress.3. When it comes to makeup there is no wrong or right, what you think looks good is what’s right. Art is all about creativity.Some people wear makeup just because it’s art, fun or because they feel confident when they have makeup on. It may be unnecessary in you’re opinion, but no one wishes for you’re approval. “ can all be ourselves with or without makeup. Same goes with hair. there is no wrong or right, what you think looks good is what’s right. It’s all about creativity and expressing yourself. Doesn’t matter if it’s real or not. Or if it’s short, shaved, natural hair, colored, box braids or wigs. Women including black women, no one wishes for you’re approval. Let women equality be themselves without the assumption that they don’t love themselves. It’s not always the case.4. motherhood is a personal choice and she has every right when she wants to be pregnant, how she wants to get pregnant and when she doesn’t want to be a mother. Being a parent is a personal choice. It always has been.5. reading is Fundamental6. society kills happiness7. getting married is a personal choice. Always has been.8. being in a relationship is a personal choice. Always has been.9. Getting married and/or having kids because everyone else is doing it. That’s like having sex because everyone else is doing it. You’ll just hate yourself—and probably, sadly, your spouse and kids—in the end.10. “Don’t judge a situation you’ve never been in” it’s important to be open minded to the way others live their lives and sometimes that requires putting yourself in their shoes11. speaking up against mistreatment of abuse, bullying, racism, sexism, homophobia isn’t !complaining, being over sensitive, or you having a victim mentality. Ignoring it won’t help. It will continue. Speak tf up ! Call out racism, sexism, homophobia, abuse, mistreatment. You are not a doormat! Be assertive!12. science is real13. Age has got nothing to do with breakups. if we men /women have to start to value ourselves more and give time and space without expectations. lots can change. All we need to do is to improve on our ourselves and learn to let go. Time and patience is key. If she or he is happy and enjoying his or her life without you, let it be. If she or he feels that life is better without you let it be.. that person was never meant to be and we all deserve someone who has courage to sustain us . We have to learn to VALUE ourselves and everything will fall into its place.14. church and state should be separated. Not into politics, women’s reproductive health, what the lgbt do. When we say Church and state needs to be separated, that doesn’t mean to take you’re right to religion away. (Let me explain it in another way so many can try to understand clearly.) It just meandecision, not yours. Your religious beliefs should not force people to live a certain way because of your beliefs. We all have beliefs or lack there of. The primary issue here is a person's sovereignty over their lives and over their bodies. It is not your concern and you are not an autocrat that dictates how people believe on’t put regulations, laws, you’re beliefs onto others that doesn’t apply to you as an individual.if you’re straight then the lgbt shouldn’t concern you because you’re straight. No one is forcing you to get married to the same sex. If you’re against birth control then don’t take any. No one is forcing you to take it. If you’re against abortion and not pregnant with a high risk pregnancy , then it shouldn’t concern you.15. Rape is never the victim’s fault16. Rape) “the penetration, no matter how slight, of the vagina or anus with any body part or object, or oral penetration by a sex organ of another person, without the consent of the victim.”It is also rape when penetration takes place when you are drunk, high, drugged, passed out, or asleep and cannot give consent. People under the age of 18 (in most states) cannot give consent to sexual activity with an adult.Rape is a type of sexual assault that includes sexual penetration, no matter how slight, without consent. Although other types of sexual assault may be done by men or women, rape is almost always done by men.1 Most women who are raped are raped by someone they know, such as a former or current intimate partner, an acquaintance, or a family member.1another one know one really knows or discuss is reproductive coercion . A “behavior intended to maintain power and control in a relationship related to reproductive health”. Examples include sabotaging contraception, such as hiding or destroying birth control pills, purposely poking holes in a condom, removing a condom during sex, or not pulling out during intercourse as agreed upon; pressuring a partner to get pregnant when they don’t want to; and threatening violence if she doesn’t agree to comply with her partner’s wishes, whether it’s to terminate or carry the pregnancy. For some people in states whether it’s to terminate or carry the pregnancy. For some people in states with strict abortion laws, getting pregnant against their will could mean they're effectively forced to carry a pregnancy to term.Reproductive coercion is a form of intimate partner violence and can happen alongside other types of IPV.This is abuse and control.Reproductive control takes away a woman's self-worth, self-esteem, and ability to have control over her reproductive intentions, She is belittled and undermined.”Reproductive coercion can take the form of threats, physical violence, or emotional manipulation. In addition to nonconsensual condom removal, other examples include refusing to wear a condom, hiding your birth control pills, removing your IUD without your permission, persuading you to have a baby when you don’t want to, or guilting you into having an abortion when you don’t want one.17. What is NOT considered consent in sexual activity?Silence. Just because someone does not say “no” doesn’t mean she is saying “yes.”Having consented before. Just because someone said “yes” in the past does not mean she is saying “yes” now. Consent must be part of every sexual activity, every time.Being in a relationship. Being married, dating, or having sexual contact with someone before does not mean that there is consent now.Being drunk or high. Read more about alcohol, drugs, and sexual assault.Not fighting back. Not putting up a physical fight does not mean that there is consent.Sexy clothing, dancing, or flirting. What a woman or girl wears or how she behaves does not show consent for sexual activity. Only a verbal “yes” means “yes” to sexual activity.18.What’s consent?Sexual consent is an agreement to participate in a sexual activity. Before being sexual with someone, you need to know if they want to be sexual with you too. It’s also important to be honest with your partner about what you want and don’t want.Consenting and asking for consent are all about setting your personal boundaries and respecting those of your partner — and checking in if things aren’t clear. Both people must agree to sex — every single time — for it to be consensual.19. not all pregnancy is consensual though. Some pregnancy are due to rape and incest. It’s a shame that as society we say just don’t have sex , keep you’re legs closed. when rape is a real thing. Forced sex . we are so quick to assume that if we see a minor or an adult women that’s pregnant we assume, generalize them as being irresponsible, not wearing protection. It actually does hurt pregnant women and girls. And sometimes birth control does fail. We as society should think before we judge a pregnant person. And not act so entitled about their situation.20. crying is good for you. Crying is a good healing. Crying is normal and it does not mean you’re weak.21. wearing a mask and social distancing protects you and others from getting the virus22. You can't tell Jewish people what's anti-Semitic, just like nobody can tell Black people what's racist, just like you can't tell Gay people what's homophobic, just like you can't tell women what's sexist." Don’t be ignorant. Shush and Listen.23. If you’re not a racist, sexist, anti-Semitic or a homophobic then you should simply understand that when a topic is being addressed or someone is talking about an experience, it doesn’t apply to you! it’s just speaking out against those WHO!! Are like that.24. Being a virgin is normal, being sexually active is normal nor should be shamed, taboo. Being sexually active does not make you a hoe, fuckboy. Being a virgin does not make you boring, weak, broken. Many people are a virgin for different personal reasons. And Not just for the Christian way.25. dancing in a sensual way does not mean you a hoe. Have no respect for yourself. It’s about dancing, expressing yourself and having fun. I’m mean look at the 80s movie dancing dirty. The way she dances. It doesn’t make her a hoe. Again she’s just dancing, expressing herself and having fun. Oh and another thing about dancing in a sensual way , when you see guys twerk, it doesn’t mean that they are all gay. Don’t assume. There’s straight men that twerk, shake their hips. They too are just enjoy themselves by feeling their favorite song or a beat that’s grooving them. They too are just dancing and having fun. no need to be rolling the eyes.26.27.28. Balance in life is key29.30. Age is just a number. Relax there’s no manual on what age you are supposed to do. Sometimes it’s good to release your inner kid.to be beautiful means to be yourself. It does mean you go in the room thinking you’re better than them. That your superior. You don’t need to be accepted by others. You need to accept yourself31.32.3334. Black women are human beings with human emotions just like everyone else. Especially anger. Their not just the strong black women trope. Things in life do hurt them(mistreatment, sexism, racism, homophobia, abuse, grief, stress) they are allowed to feel different emotions. Speaking up, expressing themselves or opinions does not make them just the angry black loud ghetto woman. They should be treated as equal with natural human emotions. And not just identify them with a only special label(loud, ghetto, the angry black women when dealing with things(mistreatment, sexism, racism, homophobia, abuse, grief and stress. There human beings just like everyone else.35. men are not weak when it comes to crying or showing emotions that upsets them in life(mistreatment, abuse, grief, stress, etc etc)They are human beings. Men are allowed to be feminine and it does not mean they are less of a man.36. Theres nothing wrong with being single. Being single is your choice. And shouldn’t be forced or rushed into a relationship. Everyone is single for different reasons.Remember that37. As an adult, as an individual every decision begins with you38.39.40. Never Beg41.42.43.44.45. Sometimes you need to stop seeing the good in people and start seeing what they show you46.also…47. Boundaries are you’re responsibility , you decide what isn’t allowed in your life.48.49.50.theres no such thing as a perfect family. Decent good parents argue too. To Have the expectations of what a family should do, behave is unrealistic. Every family isn’t perfect. Every family. And no I wasn’t talking about abusive, toxic family. I’m talking about decent families.51.52. Opinions are not facts53. if you’re helping someone and expecting something in return , you’re doing business Not kindness54. it is not your job to be everything to everyone.55. Time heals almost everything, give it time56.make peace with you’re past so it won’t disturb you’re future.57.58.59. If you don’t have a plan, you plan to fail60. We are all mad here61. The idea of blind spots….the idea of people around us are bound not to witness everything we experience. People around you may not notice all your feelings, they won’t be able to read your thoughts. Failing to acknowledge blind spots can warped into black and white thinking. That person is not your antagonist they are their own protagonist in their own life just as you are. They have flaws, weaknesses, and blindspots just like you have.62.64.65. “Everyone’s suicidal thoughts are different, and so are suicidal actions. Not all suicides are because of temporary problems. Stop generalizing. Please think before you speak. People like you never see what rally happens because they are to afraid. Open your eyes and see why people do. Stop thinking you know about the people who do it. And shaming or putting your religious beliefs into those who do it. You don’t! We all have reasons to cut or attempt suicide! It’s important Learn about mental illness, mental health and about suicide. It’s also about having an understanding, listening, acknowledgement.66. People don't understand that hard work doesn't pay the bills.Hard work doesn't get you a home at 21.Hard work doesn't get you a car at 19.Hard work doesn't put food on the table for a family of four.And if you go to school to get ahead you'll probably be in debt.there are things in life that play a role in life and how society is set up. (Example)sexism: men are paid more than womensystematic racism: whites are paid more than blacks and Hispanics67. When speaking up against racism, talking about racism..A lot of Americans and those in other countries will often say: 'Well we’re all human, we all have the same experience,' when we don’tJust because you don't understand something, or too lazy to research something, or don't agree with something that doesn't mean that that ' something' doesn't exist...68. “People are too sensitive nowadays”There’s a line between a joke and pure disrespect. They have a right to be offended. When disrespect is disguised as a joke, it’s a problem. Not everything is a joke.69. divorceThe church needs to have a honest conversations about divorce. And speak realistically about divorce. Keeping a marriage intact at the cost of the wellbeing of she or he does more Harm than good to society especially in abusive relationships. Sadly many in churches believe a divorced woman is a bad example. Divorce is never easy, no matter how mutual it can be. But happiness and peace should always be a priority.divorce, people are suffering, hanging on just for the sake of religion.if you have kids give them love and attention after divorce. bond with them. Talk and be honest to you’re kids/kid that just because “mommy and daddy are splitting up doesn’t mean we don’t love you” ”us splitting up has nothing to do with you” I ””understand that it’s hard but things are different. It’s not the end of the world “As you talking to them about the situation..As they grow up they will understand when they are adults.Kids are better off with separate happier parents than parents who are fighting every day. You end up snapping at them. Also if it’s an toxic marriage and theres kids involved, Kids will be affected worse if you stay in that marriage.Divorce is part of marriage. That’s the truth. Most churches don’t preach about it. But they should !we as society should not judge, shame who are or considering divorced. There’s different personal reasons why divorce is taken place. Not everything works out and that’s okay. there’s no formula to a perfect, all happy successful marriage.It’s we do our best.Why someone is getting a divorce or why is someone is divorced shouldn’t be anyone’s business unless she or he tells you why. we Adults should be respectful and have some understanding, opened mind and empathy.it also takes healing, recovery and self love too.70. BLM’s mission is to campaign against violence and systemic racism towards Black people and and other poc people across the world and in the USA.The organization regularly holds protests against police killings of Blacks people and addresses broader issues such as racial profiling, police brutality, and racial inequality in the United States criminal justice system.also…1. u do not get to tell black ppl they can’t be mad at the fact that theyre getting killed and treated horrible for the color of their skin.2. Racism is not a card. It’s a reality and it’s effects are real.“racial abuse is a very real problem.there are events that'll happen around us that are beyond our control”3.The race card was invented by ignorant folk to trivialize and dismiss valid criticisms of their micro aggressions and harmful insensitivity/fragility. Because the hate being called racist but not enough to stop BEING racist4. don’t victim blame blacks and poc for experiencing racism. Ask yourself this..Would you blame a woman who was a victim of domestic abuse?no?Would blame a Muslim who was a victim of Islamophobia?No?Would you blame a jew who was a victim of antisemitism?No?…..don’t blame people who experience crap from other people. Somethings are out of their control.5. And how would you know how it feels for a black person, when being subjected to the amount of racism?also…Do you realize that if the BLM movement succeeds in decreasing police brutality that we all benefit from that?black people are MORE threatened than any other race. Not the ONLY one. You’re misunderstanding. But we all win if there is change.that’s a fact not a opinion.“ please use google if you don’t know what racial profiling, the BLM, racial inequality or what police brutality is”because people and sometimes the media spreads misinformation, lies about the BLM and it’s not helping. It’s causing confusion and questioning in the wrong way.the BLM is a human right.the Feminist movement across the world and in the USA was to fight for reproductive health rights, fight against sexism, fight against rape culture, injustice (violence against women and girls) or also known as Femicide. “ please use google if you don’t know what Femicide ,toxic masculinity or sexism is”the feminist movement also fights for equality (example) men and women getting equal pay, getting justice for rape/sexual assault victims, fighting against toxic masculinity. Equality ( fighting for women, women of color on women issues (again) reproductive health rights, etc.the feminist movement is a human rightthe gay pride movement and the lgbtq movement fight against gender discrimination, domestic violence in the lgbtq community, violence against black trans, tans, gays and lgbtq in general. The lgbtq movement fights to keep same sex marriage legal. The lgbtq movement fights to stop shame on who they are and spread awareness on the effects of social stigma.the lgbtq movement is a human rightAgain!!and please be aware that people and sometimes the media spread misinformation, lies, hate, gaslight these movements. And it’s extremely important to do research and check fact. Also google is free. Use it!We will not shape the movement to fit the narrative YOU would like to see carried out because that does nothing for us in the long run. Changing our narrative will not help us dismantle the systems of oppression. This is not about you.These movements are a human right not political.shush and listen to black voices, poc voices , women, women of color and those who identify themselves in the lgbtq without the whataboutism crap or use tactics to take away from the these movements.as a society we need to be opened minded. Not be complicit and just listen. We need to do better as a society and use human decency, use our privileges to help those who are in need in a crisis. just because you never experience or know what was being said and done does not mean it doesn’t happen. It doesn’t exist. Or we are equal.I don’t think asking activists to change how they word their demands is the solution.they hijack the message and make it about patriotism or something else unrelated. For folks to call it out is a bridge too far.Even more evidence to be direct on concise in your efforts. Having to explain anything is an disadvantage to the cause. I see what you’re saying but it’s proven, repeatedly, the need for sharp, pointed, and direct messaging.“when you are part of a targeted group, where your loved ones can be randomly taken from you by violent racists, with all the world watching and letting it continue year after year, you might feel differently.”“Civility is a weapon used by the comfortable.”71. “Y'all gon learn one day or tomorrow “I hate to hear people who pretend racism is only in a black persons head. Not all people have Emmanuel’s experience. Also racism isn’t just a liberal thing . what are a lot conservatives doing?? I don’t see Republican presidents getting rid of public aid. Also, it’s more than just going to school making good grades, racism is permeated thru all threads of society. Someone mentioned about Asians working hard, well there are many people who are law abiding, go to work and still get harassed by police, charged more in insurance rates, pay more in rent, charged higher interest rates on purchases. These are facts that have been brought to light numerous times to the public, but people like you walk around saying those same tired lines… if blacks would just be an American, work hard; it’s not that simple buddy. It doesn’t f*@*ing matter how hard you do your best. you can be a poor black, a middle class, or wealthy (Oprah) with a decent job, doing what you’re supposed to do to survive in life. Be successful.you can be a black person with a medical degree, an artist, dancer, athlete and…still, still, still be racial profiled , harassed because of the color of your skin, be perceived as the typical stereotypical black person, a criminal. Less human, denied . Accused of a crime you know damn well you didn’t commit. Just all this trying bs.you can’t just ignore it. It’s there!!you’ve seen the cluck ness on the videos on social media. You hear the stories of “your “ black friends, black spouse or family member or even your black colleagues of how much bull crap they have to endure.You hear about the mistreatment towards blacks in history class (I hope you were paying attention or even taught in history class) a lot of them ain’t making sh** up. Black people don’t have to please you just so their experiences can fit the narrative you would like to see . It’s not about you!72. did you know?Hispanic/Latino culture is European culture. They are an offshot of europeanism. They have no connection to Africa.