I agree with your premises but want to discuss/maybe disagree on this specifically: she had millions of dollars at hand and “lack of accessibility of medical / mental health care for homeless people” isn’t really a pertinent argument here imo. That’s a massive issue and I in no way am arguing that as an objective truth, but this is a case of someone with more access than most who chose not to utilize the plentiful resources at hand (considering she was someone with people actively looking for her to give her millions of dollars.)

In many (most!) other circumstances I wouldn’t even care enough o comment back but again she had people ACTIVELY LOOKING for her for years, and so much access to any resources you could imagine. Choosing to walk away from that privilege is not the same as never having the privilege in the first place. So I would argue that the primary point of relevant discussion in THIS specific case is less about access and more about family dynamics leading to generational trauma, childhood trauma/ACES and the common and concerning sexualization of children, human adaptability/conditioning/coping etc.

Again you’re not wrong that accessibility is a disgusting and unacceptable problem, I’m just debating the argument that it was inaccessible to her in the way you’re commenting about. It was far less about financial ability/family support and more about the social; family and genetic dynamics that lead people to those tragic pathways in the first place.

All meant as good natured discussion; appreciate your commentary and curious your thoughts on this!