Prince had a bodyguard and a name. If he presents himself to be of sound mind, they cannot hold him against his will. That's the law. To hold him for the reason you describe, you have to seek a court order.
What does having a name and a bodyguard have to do with it? And how does someone who just OD'd qualify as being of sound mind? My point is that he WAS a danger to himself. And he should NOT have been let go from the hospital.
Quit trying to moralize this. When drug addiction comes into play, moral choices go out the window start ranting about "choice" and "personal responsibility" have obviously never been addicted to any substances. I have a nephew who is a (hopefully) recovering heroin addict. He became severely depressed after his fiance broke off the engagement. He was at a house party with his brother, already an addict. His addicted brother felt so bad for him that he offered the drug to him to help relieve the emotional pain. Well, he was so depressed that his guard wasn't just down, it was missing. So, what happened is what happened. he also became an addict. Are you going to judge him? The main thing is to treat the addiction first, not to criticize how they got there.
A lot, if you're famous and wealthy. The law. Even doctors cannot make that determination. It's the way the system works. You want to argue that in a court of law?
It's arguable, of course, but I would guess the principal expectations were self-imposed. It's tough to 'grow old' on stage, but he didn't really need to tour, and he certainly didn't need his tours to be Sign o' the Times extravaganzas. The Piano and a Microphone tour was, we can see now, a direct response to that (and a really good idea, given the circumstances). Might it have launched a new era of subdued concerts? If it had, would it have allowed him to cope better? I guess we'll never know.
No one know what Prince was doing, how much he was taking, how long, what for... etc.....we're all just guessing based on rumors, second hand stories etc... none of that changes my opinion of him in any way. Lou Reed was a junkie for years, why should that affect my opinion of him as a musician? ....the last person I would've expected to die from an overdose was Prince though....mysterious even in death
You already have repsonded to this post. And we don't agree. Anyone who OD's and almost dies is a danger themselves. It doesn't take Stevie Wonder to see that. If no one had the balls to do something to keep him in the hospital, that's on their conscience.
Unless Prince called himself an addict, no one has any right to call him one. Addiction, like alcoholism, is a self diagnosed disease.
Why bring old Lou into this? It's debatable whether he was a junkie - pill popper and alcoholic in the 70s for sure. If anything he's an example of impressive abstinence and recovery where many others in similar situations do not succeed - he cleaned up in the early 80s and worked out religiously the last decades of his life. No one ever mentions this.
Yes, there is such a thing called an Emergency Custody Order, which pretty much is the same for any state. I think in Minnesota it's called an "Emergency Hold." Emergency custody orders for adult persons who are incapable of making an informed decision as a result of physical injury or illness. (§ 37.2-1103)—Virginia Decoded—Virginia Decoded » The above is just an example. Hell, Prince's bodyguard could have evoked this order and the doctor in Illinois, not to mention Prince's primary care physician in Minneapolis. When your bodyguard carries you, unconscious, from the plane, and they give you anti-OD drugs on the tarmac, this is a pretty good indication that something needs to be done...now! Now he's dead.
Not so. No matter the addiction, an addict is someone who can't end their behavior by simply stopping. Addicts can kick habits on their own in rare cases but it takes much effort. For opiates, meds can help decrease withdrawal symptoms. Still, an addict is an addict whether he or she admits it or not. Ed
Of course all of this is true but if you're of sound mind, you can decide to leave and that's that. We don't know enough about his mental state to know how he was when he got there. We don't know much of anything, really. Ed
I suppose that's why this Recovery Without Walls place was finally contacted. It just wasn't done immediately. By Prince's actions in the following few days, he was probably getting himself ready, I mean, a small concert, even telling fans to save their prayers. He probably knew something had to be done asap......
I know from painful personal experience that one can take narcotics for years without becoming addicted to them, provided you aren't being overmedicated. And there certainly is a difference between physical dependence and addiction.The former is purely physical, the latter is neurobiological.
I've known plenty of vegetarians who are fat and out of shape. They do it for animal rights, not for self improvement.
You're mistaken. I've known too many addicts. Rarely am I 100% sure I'm right but in this case, it is what it is. Addicts can deny it all they want but that doesn't make them not addicts. I don't know the addict that won't tell you that. Ed
I think some Elvis Costello fans might disagree. And there were other great artists to come out of that period. Still, I agree, Prince was the cream of the crop.
I'm sorry you had a rough go of it with narcotics but not everyone has taken them without getting addicted. Many can't, in fact, as I've seen for myself. They end up getting addicted and have to be weaned off of them over time. Ed
Well upon further reading, while he was a vegan, he wasn't above some not so good for you stuff. My initial post was regarding an interview of some gal who said he would sit at the dinner table with you and tell you passionately why you shouldn't put meat into your body. Bugs me when people tell people what they should or shouldn't do, no matter what, then turn around and find out they have been putting things in their own bodies that are harmful.
