Who is this even for? The only people who will suffer are the vulnerable populations. This is almost like when they tried to defund the Department of Disabilities a few months ago, because our Local legislators have been doing such a bang-up job recently!
Shocked that my city would even consider making it more difficult for the unhoused to get medical care. I haven't researched who came up with this idea yet but find it totally inconsistent with the values Phoenicians have repeatedly expressed by votes and survey after survey. You should be focused on creating more Sage Outdoor Space locations to actually help people instead of this nonsense.
I strongly oppose this ordinance because making it a crime to address medical needs & provide harm reduction in parks will make it more difficult to reach & serve our most vulnerable community members as the Lord intended. Every human being no matter their status is born deserving of healthcare, food, & shelter. Please do not criminalize & dehumanize people for simply existing as human beings with human needs in public spaces. Please do not criminalize these vital public health services.Thankyou
I strongly oppose the ordinance and that preventing medical care will not make our communities safer. It will make our cities very unsafe and I do not at all support these cruel laws that basically punish impoverished / homeless people. They deserve help, not to be left to starve and die. This is only one among other laws seen like the insane Tempe park gathering rules and permits. Our public spaces should remain free and we should never be denied gathering spaces with paywalls.
I strongly oppose this ordinance. Making it a crime to provide medical treatment and harm reduction services in parks will not make our communities safer. It does the opposite - it will cause an increase in deaths, reduce the amount of people receiving health care, facilitate the spread of disease, and put more strain on our hospitals and EMS. Harm reduction and street medicine are evidence based public health practices proven to improve health outcomes. This ordinance is cruel and unscientific.
I strongly oppose this ordinance. Reducing access to evidence based public health services can in no way improve the safety of our communities. This proposal runs so counter to current best practices that it borders on malice. Please do not approve such an unscientific and immoral measure.
I oppose this ordinance. Banning medical treatment and harm reduction services will not make our public parks safer. Syringe service programs are a evidence based public health intervention to reduce HIV and Hep C infections. Banning this intervention in parks is not in line with CDC's EHE or ADHS integrated HIV, HCV STI plan.
Strongly oppose this ordinance. Patients deserve fast, quality health care and this can create additional complications if patients are unable to received services in a timely manner.
I strongly oppose this ordinance because banning harm reduction and medical care in parks endangers lives and harms public health. These policies push vulnerable people further into the margins instead of addressing substance use and homelessness. Unsheltered people deserve love, dignity, and compassion, not laws that criminalize survival. Access to care is a moral and public health necessity.
I strongly oppose this ordinance because it will make it even more difficult for to reach the most vulnerable among us. Harm reduction is more important than arbitrarily punishing users because it reduces strain on the community medical system by helping prevent overdoses and HIV transmission, both vital concerns among the unhoused population. Beyond providing lifesaving care, harm reduction programs have numerous material benefits, so banning them in parks is illogical and cruel.
I strongly oppose this ordinance. While the name claims "safe medical care", the truth is that it would severely limit the care options for unhoused and vulnerable community members. Street medicine and harm reduction are essential public health services that treat needs unmet by other healthcare systems. Contact burns are an example of a common health concern that is effectively treated on the street and may not be addressed otherwise.
Christina Heid, Medical Student and MPH Student
I strongly oppose this ordinance because it will make basic healthcare and outreach even harder to access for people who are already facing significant barriers. Community-based medical outreach and harm reduction help prevent overdoses, improve access to care, reduce strain on EMS and emergency rooms, and protect public health for the entire community.
As a community outreach worker, I strongly oppose this ordinance. It denies essential healthcare to people who lack the means to seek services elsewhere and creates dangerous barriers to care. It disproportionately harms vulnerable populations making it both unjust and inhumane. Street medicine and harm reduction save lives—this ordinance does the opposite. Every person deserves to be shown care and humanity. Do not pass this inhuman ordinance!
I have had the opportunity to serve people experiencing homelessness with Street Medicine. I oppose this ordinance because evidence shows that community-based care and outreach improves healthcare outcomes and reduces burden on emergency departments. This ordinance will negatively impact public health and increase costs for the community.
-Alexis Johnson, 2nd year medical student speaking in a personal capacity
I am a community worker in AZ. And the experience I have had the blessing to meet some amazing people that we have served. The community already isolates humans based on their lifestyle or way of living. This ordinance further creates this same issue. These people we serve are humans and deserving of healthcare. Isolating and stoking a stigma is only going to make chances of survival or getting help less and more people will lose their lives. WE are ALL deserving of care.
As a healthcare professional with street medicine experience, I oppose this ordinance. Evidence strongly illustrates that community-based medical outreach and harm reduction improve access to care, prevent overdoses, and reduce bloodborne virus transmission. These services intervene early and lower emergency department use and public costs. Restricting where healthcare can occur does not improve safety, it shifts costs, worsens outcomes, and undermines public health.
Street medicine and harm reduction are crucial in keeping our community members safe and healthy. Healthcare is a human right, and people experiencing homelessness deserve accessible, affordable healthcare. This ordinance will make healthcare increasibly inaccessible and place burden on other systems (EMS, ED) that are already overwhelmed.
- Rujuta Takalkar, year 3 medical student
Public health and street medicine are vital in treating the entire population. If this passes, it will not only restrict and hurt the unsheltered, it will also make many outreach teams, churches, and those trying to provide basic needs unable to do so. This is a complete step backwards in virus elimination and serving the people of Phoenix. Viruses don’t discriminate who they infect, so we can’t discriminate who we treat. This proposal puts every person in Phoenix at a higher risk of disease.
Who is this even for? The only people who will suffer are the vulnerable populations. This is almost like when they tried to defund the Department of Disabilities a few months ago, because our Local legislators have been doing such a bang-up job recently!
Shocked that my city would even consider making it more difficult for the unhoused to get medical care. I haven't researched who came up with this idea yet but find it totally inconsistent with the values Phoenicians have repeatedly expressed by votes and survey after survey. You should be focused on creating more Sage Outdoor Space locations to actually help people instead of this nonsense.
I strongly oppose this ordinance because making it a crime to address medical needs & provide harm reduction in parks will make it more difficult to reach & serve our most vulnerable community members as the Lord intended. Every human being no matter their status is born deserving of healthcare, food, & shelter. Please do not criminalize & dehumanize people for simply existing as human beings with human needs in public spaces. Please do not criminalize these vital public health services.Thankyou
PHX needs to Create safe areas outside of the parks for these services. That are easy to get to via walking or public transportation.
I strongly oppose the ordinance and that preventing medical care will not make our communities safer. It will make our cities very unsafe and I do not at all support these cruel laws that basically punish impoverished / homeless people. They deserve help, not to be left to starve and die. This is only one among other laws seen like the insane Tempe park gathering rules and permits. Our public spaces should remain free and we should never be denied gathering spaces with paywalls.
I strongly oppose this ordinance. Making it a crime to provide medical treatment and harm reduction services in parks will not make our communities safer. It does the opposite - it will cause an increase in deaths, reduce the amount of people receiving health care, facilitate the spread of disease, and put more strain on our hospitals and EMS. Harm reduction and street medicine are evidence based public health practices proven to improve health outcomes. This ordinance is cruel and unscientific.
I strongly oppose this ordinance. Reducing access to evidence based public health services can in no way improve the safety of our communities. This proposal runs so counter to current best practices that it borders on malice. Please do not approve such an unscientific and immoral measure.
I oppose this ordinance. Banning medical treatment and harm reduction services will not make our public parks safer. Syringe service programs are a evidence based public health intervention to reduce HIV and Hep C infections. Banning this intervention in parks is not in line with CDC's EHE or ADHS integrated HIV, HCV STI plan.
Strongly oppose this ordinance. Patients deserve fast, quality health care and this can create additional complications if patients are unable to received services in a timely manner.
I strongly oppose this ordinance because banning harm reduction and medical care in parks endangers lives and harms public health. These policies push vulnerable people further into the margins instead of addressing substance use and homelessness. Unsheltered people deserve love, dignity, and compassion, not laws that criminalize survival. Access to care is a moral and public health necessity.
I strongly oppose this ordinance because it will make it even more difficult for to reach the most vulnerable among us. Harm reduction is more important than arbitrarily punishing users because it reduces strain on the community medical system by helping prevent overdoses and HIV transmission, both vital concerns among the unhoused population. Beyond providing lifesaving care, harm reduction programs have numerous material benefits, so banning them in parks is illogical and cruel.
I strongly oppose this ordinance. While the name claims "safe medical care", the truth is that it would severely limit the care options for unhoused and vulnerable community members. Street medicine and harm reduction are essential public health services that treat needs unmet by other healthcare systems. Contact burns are an example of a common health concern that is effectively treated on the street and may not be addressed otherwise.
Christina Heid, Medical Student and MPH Student
I strongly oppose this ordinance because it will make basic healthcare and outreach even harder to access for people who are already facing significant barriers. Community-based medical outreach and harm reduction help prevent overdoses, improve access to care, reduce strain on EMS and emergency rooms, and protect public health for the entire community.
Harm reduction and street medicine saves lives. I strongly oppose this ordinance. Everyone is deserving of medical care without significant barriers.
As a community outreach worker, I strongly oppose this ordinance. It denies essential healthcare to people who lack the means to seek services elsewhere and creates dangerous barriers to care. It disproportionately harms vulnerable populations making it both unjust and inhumane. Street medicine and harm reduction save lives—this ordinance does the opposite. Every person deserves to be shown care and humanity. Do not pass this inhuman ordinance!
I have had the opportunity to serve people experiencing homelessness with Street Medicine. I oppose this ordinance because evidence shows that community-based care and outreach improves healthcare outcomes and reduces burden on emergency departments. This ordinance will negatively impact public health and increase costs for the community.
-Alexis Johnson, 2nd year medical student speaking in a personal capacity
I am a community worker in AZ. And the experience I have had the blessing to meet some amazing people that we have served. The community already isolates humans based on their lifestyle or way of living. This ordinance further creates this same issue. These people we serve are humans and deserving of healthcare. Isolating and stoking a stigma is only going to make chances of survival or getting help less and more people will lose their lives. WE are ALL deserving of care.
As a healthcare professional with street medicine experience, I oppose this ordinance. Evidence strongly illustrates that community-based medical outreach and harm reduction improve access to care, prevent overdoses, and reduce bloodborne virus transmission. These services intervene early and lower emergency department use and public costs. Restricting where healthcare can occur does not improve safety, it shifts costs, worsens outcomes, and undermines public health.
Street medicine and harm reduction are crucial in keeping our community members safe and healthy. Healthcare is a human right, and people experiencing homelessness deserve accessible, affordable healthcare. This ordinance will make healthcare increasibly inaccessible and place burden on other systems (EMS, ED) that are already overwhelmed.
- Rujuta Takalkar, year 3 medical student
Public health and street medicine are vital in treating the entire population. If this passes, it will not only restrict and hurt the unsheltered, it will also make many outreach teams, churches, and those trying to provide basic needs unable to do so. This is a complete step backwards in virus elimination and serving the people of Phoenix. Viruses don’t discriminate who they infect, so we can’t discriminate who we treat. This proposal puts every person in Phoenix at a higher risk of disease.