It's orwellian to say that dependence on a non-nutritional chemical is "Liberty".
I'm talking about the individual being at Liberty to decide whether they want to be dependent on the medicine, while maintaining the ability to move around freely and have a decent quality of life, as contrasted with having no adequate medication, and therefore being unable to move around, being bedridden, and having an even worse quality of life
That is the individual's choice to make, not the doctor's, not the government's, and not the family's. I'm certainly not qualified to dictate to an individual what I think gives them thee best "quality of life". Only the individual can make that choice, hopefully after being fully apprised of the trade-offs involved.
Consequently, I utterly reject the notion that any person should be forced to languish in excruciating pain for the remainder of their life, simply because of someone else's prejudices. If constant pain isn't an issue, that's one thing. But if it is, then that can't be ignored or dismissed, nor should a person be criticized or criminalized simply because they choose the option which they feel gives them the best quality of life.
The situation described in the article obviously exceeds those ideal parameters, and it does so, IMHO, due to no fault of the patient, and therefore the exacerbating factors lie elsewhere.
Vote Trump!
It’s orwellian to say that dependence on a non-nutritional chemical is “Liberty”.