Dependency and Sanctuary

My post about the dependency-based theory of justice project prompted the following message from an MOJ reader who used to direct a drop-in homeless shelter, speculating about the theory’s possible application to the obligations of care-givers in that context.  He puts his finger right on the thorniest problem in the project – finding the balance between, on the one hand, acknowledging some state of dependency that justifies some special protection and, on the other hand, empowering people in various states of dependency to assert their autonomy.  Philosopher Anita Silvers has criticized Alisdair MacIntyre’s project as it relates to disability rights on those very grounds. (Anita Silvers, Formal Justice, in Disability, Difference, Discrimination: Perspectives on Justice in Bioethics and Public Policy 13, 138 (1998).

This reader’s post begins with a brief discussion of how he found MOJ, which is also interesting.  It's related to the good, old-fashioned, Esmeralda-in-Notre-Dame-Cathedral-type sanctuary situation taking place right now in Chicago.    He wrote:

I originally googled 'sanctuary,' as a result of the present situation in Chicago where a woman who may be deported has sought sanctuary within a church.  That led me to the Mirror of Justice web-site and this post.

I'm interested in the subject since as an advocate for the homeless, and a former faith-based homeless shelter founder and manager, I was confronted with situations where guests had broken the law and the question of what responsibilities, morals and ethics are involved when a shelter must make decisions as to continue services, contact the police, etc., come to the fore. I sought clerical input but perhaps because there may be some liability on their part in view of their peripheral involvement, I wasn't able to obtain any definitive answers.  (It was interesting to see in newspaper articles about the Chicago situation, that 'U.S. courts have definitely rejected any notion of sanctuary within the church - local law enforcement officials are more held back only by the prospect of damaging public relations if they are portrayed fairly or unfairly as 'jackboots.') 

The reader continues with the following comments about the application of the dependency theory of justice to the situations he saw in his work at the shelter.

Our guests live on the street and in the woods.  We can see them wearing out to the point where we know death is imminent.  In the absence of family, we are as near to the meaning of the term 'caregivers,' as any other persons.  For some of our folks, an involuntary commitment to a psychiatric clinic or hospital may save their life for a while longer - they can detox and receive medications to alleviate physical and mental conditions.  In Virginia, however, where we are located, there is a 72-hour limit on the time of any involuntary confinement, and there is no requirement at all in the area of discharge plans.  They are frequently placed in a taxi and driven to the door of the shelter in the wee hours of the morning. 

Perhaps, I was thinking, where the article states, "the dependency theory of justice might be applied to two concrete areas of law - disability rights and consumer protection," it might also be applied, somehow, to the jobs of caregivers like homeless shelter managers who in the course of their duties, may from time to time, actually know what's best for their guest, even if that guest resists?  Perhaps mine represents the opposite viewpoint of those who advocate for the freedoms of the disabled to make their own decisions all the time.  In our world, however, in reality, it grants our guests the freedom to die faster than what we usually and tragically term the 'slow suicides,' of many of our guests.

Lisa