Who Pays for Free Choice?

I sometimes (actually most of the time) wonder if the government is far too involved in our lives. I need to believe that most adults are, most of the time, reasonable competent individuals who have the capacity to make decisions for themselves.  Then I read about some idiot who drinks far too much, gets into his car and causes some horrific accident that kills an entire family, or about the people who want to do an incredibly poorly conceived stunt copying someone else's poorly conceived seen on a YouTube video and kill themselves (e.g. car surfing), or for that matter deciding not to wear a seat belt. I then realize that there are some people who need to be protected from themselves, that there are some people who do not have the capacity to make reasonably safe decisions for. It is a sad statement but sometimes people need to be protected from their own stupid thoughts.

I personally do not care if people wear helmets when riding a motorcycle. In fact because I rode on a motorcycle in Quebec in the mid 1960s when helmets were not compulsory  I understand the desire to feel the wind. It is absolutely none of my business if someone wants to risk their lives. As long as the bike rider is capable of understanding that if their unprotected head hits the ground - they in all likelihood will either die or have significant brain injuries - let them do what they want to do. It is none of my business. Except....

It becomes my business when that helmetless rider is injured in an accident and my publically healthcare system becomes responsible for taking care of that person not just during the initial acute care period but perhaps for extended periods of time as the person lays there in a near coma like state. It becomes a legitimate concern of the State to try to insure that things that are preventable do not occur. It is appropriate for the State to insure that people, at least some of the time, are protected from their own selves.

Recently the Alberta government, following the lead of Manitoba and BC, have decided that Sikhs no longer have to wear a helmet while riding a motorbike.  The government did so because they were convinced that to force people from that particular community to wear a helmet would be a violation of their religious freedoms. I understand the problem, I am sure that alternatives to wearing a standard helmet were looked for and none found.  I am equally as sure that the prospect of charging Sikh bike riders for not wearing an helmet and then having those charges go through the court system - perhaps all the way to the Supreme Court was just too much. So the government gave in and took the easy way out. The change in the law affects very few people, the only ones who will complain are those who are conceived to be on the right side of the political spectrum and/or slightly racist and a small minority of voters (Sikhs) who may like the government a bit more than they did before. Of course for the hopefully small number of parents, spouses and children who may lose someone close to them because of an accident - they will not be happy.

None of my business - I really don't care . But I do think that included in that change of law sould have been the additional provision that any injuries resulting from not wearing an helmet would not be covered by the provincial health care system. I am all for people having free choice - I just do not want to have to pay for their stupid decisions.