It is a truth universally acknowledged, that an individual child with a desire to gain one Snickers bar, must be prepared to trade no less than three Twix bars. In my household, every bag of fun sized confections was an opportunity for a ridiculous negotiation with a not so ridiculous lesson behind it. When my father loves Snickers just as much as I do, why should he take only one inferior Twix for one Snickers? Critically assessing how much my companion stands to lose versus how much I was willing to pay to get what I want is a skill I have been developing since middle school. Negotiation and debate, human interaction of all kinds have always piqued my interests both academically and recreationally. Indeed communication has proved itself
…show more content…
This past year I took part in founding a student service group of the name Hopkins Undergraduates for Harm Reduction that partners with a city non-profit organization, Baltimore Harm Reduction Coalition to bring opioid overdose response trainings to the Homewood campus. A detail from those trainings that always stands out to me is that they instruct us specifically to not mention that the person may be experiencing an overdose when we call 911. They explain that this is because the 911 dispatcher might be trained to have police be sent to the scene rather than emergency vehicles as the nature of the emergency deals with the crime of illegal substance possession. I’ve since become a response trainer myself with the organization and a member of their policy committee. There we would discuss the need to also include a warning about good samaritan rights in the trainings as some police officers have started asking people on the scene of an overdose for their cellphones, which they are in no way obligated to give them. What good are legislations to protect good samaritans and their privacy if none of them know about their protection? I’ve always believed that underlying policy change was the key to real long term crisis management (whether it’s healthcare, poverty, or immigration) and most everything else but temporary band-aids. With poverty, for
This past year I took part in founding a student service group of the name Hopkins Undergraduates for Harm Reduction that partners with a city non-profit organization, Baltimore Harm Reduction Coalition to bring opioid overdose response trainings to the Homewood campus. A detail from those trainings that always stands out to me is that they instruct us specifically to not mention that the person may be experiencing an overdose when we call 911. They explain that this is because the 911 dispatcher might be trained to have police be sent to the scene rather than emergency vehicles as the nature of the emergency deals with the crime of illegal substance possession. I’ve since become a response trainer myself with the organization and a member of their policy committee. There we would discuss the need to also include a warning about good samaritan rights in the trainings as some police officers have started asking people on the scene of an overdose for their cellphones, which they are in no way obligated to give them. What good are legislations to protect good samaritans and their privacy if none of them know about their protection? I’ve always believed that underlying policy change was the key to real long term crisis management (whether it’s healthcare, poverty, or immigration) and most everything else but temporary band-aids. With poverty, for