New York Times gift articles

but I'm talking about a principle here, not reality

The individual case isn't the totality of the principle. Could have likely put that bit towards the beginning and it would have been clearer.

The article isn't really about only this one person. It does serve as very good example of why the issue needs resolution on a broad scale, with him having already proven dangerous when unmedicated.

But the principle still stands, that all of us should be able to refuse treatment when competent to manage our own care, and then have those wishes honored until we've crossed a line.

Right now, there is no such thing in the US as long term facility care for people with neurodivergence that severe that are dangerous except jail. It would be preferable if there were, but it would need robust protections in place to be viable. When there were such facilities, the abuse of and in them was rampant.

At least with the criminal justice system, a jury reduces abuse to a manageable level, and once imprisoned, the patients are at minimum danger to others.

But, dude, you gotta realize, this is the internet. It really doesn't matter what I say, how I say it, or where I say it, someone is going to complain. There would be some asshole that comes along and bitches about this comment for being too long, if I made it first. So, on my end of things, keeping shit short and simple and then explaining any misunderstanding is a fuck ton easier than the opposite.