That's not an apt analogy. Camden benches, sit/lie ordinances, etc. make the condition of being homeless worse.

If public hospitals suddenly decided to turn away emergency room patients who don't have coverage, I would absolutely criticize them. Emergency rooms are not expected to directly address the lack of health coverage, but it's within their power to mitigate one of the most painful and horrific consequences.

The same goes for city planners. As a taxpayer, I do not want to pay for benches designed to be hostile to the homeless. If you already have it so bad you need to sleep in the park, I should not be spending money to make things more miserable for you.

Doctors give an oath [1] to help all sick people.

Public park designers, and even municipal clerks who actually order benches and suchlike, do not do anything similar.

[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hippocratic_Oath

You're being downvoted, but you're right. According to the EMTL Act, both private and public emergency rooms can't turn away or delay care to patients that need it.

The EMTALA was a policy decision we made through our representatives (it doesn't have anything to do with the Hippocratic Oath).

For the same reasons the EMTALA passed, we should be killing sit/lie bills - and hostile designs like this - whenever we see them. Park benches are about the absolute lowest form of safety net you can imagine for a night's sleep, just as ER treatment without asking questions is for health. It's so far below the bare minimum that it would be repugnant to deny it.

I didn't say they were one and the same - just showing that it's illegal to turn someone away.

One thing that hasn't been mentioned - in addition to the design features already discussed, the Camden bench makes each person sit facing away from each other, deterring conversation. It's like the ultimate bench for people who don't care about others.

...or a bench providing some privacy when you need to sit next to a stranger.

A bigger problem I see is that such a bench is hard to position on a curb, next to a wall, etc, where both sides cannot be made accessible.

Seems to me that the centre section of the camden bench is big enough for two - also, in one of the photos a lady is sat on the small side of the end section, so sharing a side is certainly possible - also, two people sat on opposite sides but at an angle could almost face each other, like a love seat?

http://cyan-teak-furniture.com/acatalog/garden_bench_gift_id...

The argument is whether or not you view the homeless sleeping in the streets the same as someone breaking in to your house.

The former is unpleasant to see, but not actively hurting you, the latter case scream clear malicious intent.

They're using an analogy to make a point regarding intent behind design, and are not trying to trivialize the homeless problem. There's no need to split hairs.

It is not the same. However, the homeless person sleeping on the bench is hurting others. The purpose of having a bench is to have a place for people who are waiting for the bus, or taking a short break while moving through the city, to have a place to stop. If a person (homeless or otherwise) is using the bench to sleep, that is going against the intent of the bench in the first place. While many of these measures are primarily aimed at making things difficult for homeless people, extended bench stays are still undesirable in general.