• Pronell@lemmy.world
      25·
      3 months ago

      And forced a sane but disruptive man through a disabling procedure?

      No. She went way the hell too far so she could protect her little kingdom and stay in power. She was not concerned with helping her charges improve their lot in life.

        • cam_i_am@lemmy.world
          5·
          3 months ago

          Completely disagree, but upvoted for having a well-argued, unpopular opinion which is kind of the point of this thread!

        • Pronell@lemmy.world
          2·
          3 months ago

          I totally get where you’re coming from but wanted to put the counterpoint, as obvious as it was.

          She was caring for those who nobody else could for at that time, and to generally good effect day to day.

          I’ve worked in group homes and know of the challenges you face in serving those who aren’t all that stable.

          Just would never have advocated for that solution for anyone really. All that is said with historical knowledge and such.

          Yours was a good post.

          She was trying her best with that she had and knew at the time, even if she overreacted in the end, to terrible effect.

    • MelonYellowEnglish
      13·
      3 months ago

      Well, she was manipulative towards the patients. The worst part was when the young suicidal patient was with the girl and she reprimanded him, saying she was going to tell his mom. And she let him of her sight. It was just a power trip.