Parents of Adolf Hitler Campbell lose custody by canttakesky

Quote:
Originally posted by canttakesky:
The dispute is who has the right to decide what constitutes abuse? The kids? The govt? The parents? If parents don't have that right, as you say, then they have all the responsibility but none of the authority to use their own best judgment.

Doesn't sound fair to me, as a parent.

I'd ask you the same question. Who does decide when it is time to intervene in a family? Because there are families where abuse takes place, and I am sure no one here would deny that.
Not all parents are equipped to parent, sadly. Being able to reproduce means you have the bits and pieces to do so and you have had sex. Doesn't mean that you have the mental or psychological (or physical for that matter) capacity to do so. So what happens in those situations, according to you.

I feel pretty clear about it, and I support the role of a government authority in being able to do so. I believe i see government quite differently to many here, as I see it as an instrument to create and enact/enforce laws that the community demands.

The community says that it is not okay to physically or emotionally abuse children, and has standards about what constitutes abuse. As a parent, you do not have the right to do differently because you may have different standards.

And I'm okay with that.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, November 28, 2011 3:00 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Bytemite:
Okay. I was already in a pretty foul mood, but seeing everything I just said passed off as "don't like government, let the kids suffer durr-hurr-hurr-hyuck" has done it.

I will fulfill your fondest wishes, and try not to respond to any of you until such time as I'm not utterly and completely pissed off at everyone here and the rest of the world. Then you may speculate on what I might say and what you'd LIKE me to say at your leisure.

My post wasn't intended to you personally but to the argument at hand as made by a number of posters, nor did I intend to convey the message as you have described it.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, November 28, 2011 3:51 PM

Beir bua agus beannacht

Hi Byte and Signe. I don't really think you guys are totally on opposite sides here, you both just have slightly different ideas about how the problems with CPS/DHS should be approached and fixed. I definitely think you both are right and have good points for the most part.

I believe in a certain amount of confidentiality, if a parent's child is taken from them because they aren't suited to parenting it doesn't necessarily mean they are evil and bad all the way through. My little brother came to us because his mom was neglectful. She was given ample oppertunity to improve and get him back but she was unable to do all the things necessary. She isn't a bad person, she loves her son, but she isn't built for parenting. So after a couple of years of him living with us and her trying to get it together, it was determined that he couldn't go back to her and we got to adopt him. He still goes to her apartment once a week for an evening visit, we drop him off and pick him up a couple of hours later. She loves him and he loves her, she just isn't built for parenting. I think this sort of thing is common enough that I wouldn't want her records all over the place, or that of other parents, unless they've done things of a more easy-to-charge-with-a-crime nature.

"A completely coherant River means writers don't deliver" KatTaya

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, November 28, 2011 4:52 PM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
The dispute is who has the right to decide what constitutes abuse? The kids? The govt? The parents?

If the parents have all of the say in how they treat their children, then the children are no more than property, with no socially recognized protections at all.

I sell off my 13-year old daughter to the whorehouse? Not abuse, say I. I work my 10-year old son to death? Not abuse, say I. And who is to say otherwise? Nobody, according to you.

It would be an interesting exercise if we could try to define, just amongst our small but very diverse group, what "rights" we think children SHOULD have.

So, let me start out by saying: The right to food, water, and shelter.

What else?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, November 28, 2011 5:34 PM

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.

Well, Romanian orphans had that, so I'd have to add:
People responsive to their distress.
Safe physical contact.
Safety, physical security and health care.
Education commensurate with the general standard.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, November 28, 2011 5:54 PM

ANTHONYT

Freedom is Important because People are Important

Hello,

Of course we'd never word the education clause in quite that way, I assume.

--Anthony

_______________________________________________

"In every war, the state enacts a tax of freedom upon the citizenry. The unspoken promise is that the tax shall be revoked at war's end. Endless war holds no such promise. Hence, Eternal War is Eternal Slavery." --Admiral Robert J. Henner

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, November 28, 2011 5:55 PM

To know both parents, at the very least know who their parents are....
To have an age appropriate voice in matters that concern them
To be free from abuse, verbal, physical and emotional harm
To not be treated as a piece of property

Some of these are detailed in the UN Convention on the rights of children.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, November 28, 2011 5:56 PM

ANTHONYT

Freedom is Important because People are Important

Hello,

Come to think of it, a lot of things need rigorous defining to prevent abuse.

--Anthony

_______________________________________________

"In every war, the state enacts a tax of freedom upon the citizenry. The unspoken promise is that the tax shall be revoked at war's end. Endless war holds no such promise. Hence, Eternal War is Eternal Slavery." --Admiral Robert J. Henner

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, November 28, 2011 8:16 PM

Beir bua agus beannacht

Rights for children in the US:

Food, water, shelter and clothing of an adequate standard.
The right to an education comparable to that of other children in the US, aka to a certain standard or beyond.
No physical, emotional, sexual abuse.
Respect as human beings, the right to be listened to.
LOVE!!!!!!
Being able to have social interactions with other people to whatever degree possible in their living situation.
Adequate medical care when sick.
To not be neglected, seems obvious but still needs stated.

"A completely coherant River means writers don't deliver" KatTaya

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, November 28, 2011 9:36 PM

FREMDFIRMA

Quote:
Originally posted by Magonsdaughter:
Some of these are detailed in the UN Convention on the rights of children.

Which the US has very pointedly REFUSED to sign, period.

And that right there oughta tell ya, underneath all the glossy legalese doubletalk, which kinda "rights" kids get here in the USA - essentially, none whatever.

Hell, when the FLDS was fighting to get their kids back, they had at one point to file under an act originally penned to demand the return of livestock - seriously, in many places housepets and livestock are better protected under the law than children.

That said, CPS is wholly untrustworthy in my experience, and Siggy nails why in great part - depending on the position it either requires ridiculous credentials for a salary that flat isn't worth it, so you wind up with "crusaders" of one stripe or another, and the inevitable corruption of additional sources of income - or the qualifications are too low, as again is the payroll, and many of the same problems apply as well as inevitable burnout and secondary PTSD being a real and common problem.

Not to mention the ludicrous caseload, and political interference via directives from on-high, officially or otherwise, which even further complicate matters such as the case of the primarily Baptist CPS folk bending and breaking the rules against the sorta-Mormon FLDS, and so on and so forth - TRUST me, if you were a Mormon in Kentucky, or a Baptist in Utah, CPS is gonna give you ten tons of extra shit just BECAUSE of that no matter what the paper says because there is too damn little accountability and their whole damn heirarchy is set up to insulate THEMSELVES from consequence, deserved or no - to the exclusion of their primary duty cause without that NO ONE, would work for them at all.

The system as it stands flat doesn't work - and yes it needs to be rebuilt from the top down, starting with a universal set of standards instead of this arbitrary hit or miss sledgehammer flyswatting bullshit, it needs to be properly funded, including employee compensation, and not just properly credentialed so much as a NEW set of specific credentials being established as a minimum standard for employment, with further training and reqs for advancement and management, specific to the details of the job.
AND
This whole dumping kids on temp fosters of dubious provenance is a huge part of the problem, one of the things necessary to this is a stable, structured environment run by professionals and overseen by an independant board to place children with while cases are being investigated and processed - WHOS PERSONNEL DO NOT ANSWER TO EITHER CPS OR THE PARENTS - being thus essentially Guardian Ad Litem and concerned wholly with the childs welfare, anything less corrupts the process, cause y'all have never seen some of the horrors visited upon kids by CPS workers hell bent on a finding for reasons that have shit to do with the welfare of the kids, or conversely, visited upon kids by parents who have been victimizing them... problem is that these days dumping them on these fosters is often pouring gasoline on a fire, as are state run facilities like Hawthorne - remember what happened to Arianna Godboldo as soon as they dumped her in there, right ?

And yes, all of this requires funding, which politicians (and frankly, a lot of the public) have no interest in doing, the former cause kids don't vote and the latter cause they don't think there's nothin in it for em since the shortsighted bastards don't ever seen to connect mistreated childen to the gangbangers who just worked em over... hell one reason I am not so very kind to senior citizens as a rule is their adbication of responsibility and dumping their fucking problems and debt on me before I was even born - kids hold a grudge, people, it's there whether it's conscious or not and directed at us and our society for bloody good reasons much of the time, but I digress...
Point of that is every penny you put into it at THIS end, saves us dollars on the other in law enforcement, court costs, incarceration, and the collateral social and other problems resultant to cleaning up a mess we COULDA prevented, and didn't.

And that's all I got time for, but for a fekkin fact - were we to ever pay those who teach, who care, who heal, as much as we pay those who kill, steal and hate...

The day might come when looking at our society no longer makes me wanna fuckin puke.

-Frem
I do not serve the Blind God.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, November 29, 2011 3:25 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Byte, have you thought more about taking B complex vitamins?

You do tend to come off as reflexively anti-government. It's not that there is anything wrong with being anti-government, it's the "reflexive" part that may be a problem.

Anyway, if you can set aside your feelings (and this goes for everyone) perhaps a solution can be found.

Ohhh good grief.

Patronize much?

-----
Never be deceived that the rich will allow you to vote away their wealth. -- Lucy Parsons (1853-1942, labor activist and anarcho-communist)

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, November 29, 2011 3:50 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Magonsdaughter:
I'd ask you the same question. Who does decide when it is time to intervene in a family?

Thank you for asking me, instead of erroneously assuming and accusing that I would say "Nobody [other than the parent]" like Siggy. I appreciate it, Magon.

I think "abuse" needs to be collectively defined by the kids, the parents, and the community. First and foremost, the kids should have their say. If they feel abused and neglected, then their opinion should be taken very seriously by the community, even if the parents are doing what most parents in that situation are doing. Likewise, if they don't feel abused, that opinion should carry a lot of weight, despite how different the parents are.

I truly do not believe in a one-size-fits-all definition of abuse. All that leads to is a legal "standard of care" similar to the one used to defend medical decisions in court. Care becomes determined by conformity rather than what is best for the patient. Care becomes what covers the parents' legal asses rather than what is best for the child.

I think every community should have a "safehouse" or a hotline where children can get free counseling. This may be a church or a school program or a private charity outfit. (It doesn't have to be govt operated, but if it were, I wouldn't complain too much.) I believe strongly that the process of sussing out abuse needs to start with the kids. Not self-righteous neighbors or teachers or whatnot. The kids need to start the process of rescuing themselves.

Once the kids have expressed concern, then a team of volunteer community members (not paid govt employees with untold powers) can assess the situation privately with the children, and if possible, the parents as well. They can also come up with a collective plan for intervention short of removing custody.

If the child needs to be removed forcibly from the parents, criminal charges should be filed. As such, all such proceedings should be transparent and public. Chronic emotional torture of a child should be a crime. Removal of custody must be a last resort instead of the first. (Right now, CPS pays lip service to this, but they don't actually abide by any such "last resort" policy.)

So, in short, I support a two-phase intervention process. First, an informal one with community members. Second, in cases of severe abuse, a formal criminal procedure to remove the children and place the parents in jail.

-----
Never be deceived that the rich will allow you to vote away their wealth. -- Lucy Parsons (1853-1942, labor activist and anarcho-communist)

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, November 29, 2011 3:54 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by RionaEire:
Adequate medical care when sick.

This is a problem. This is why Ariana Godboldo was removed from her mother.

If it were up to Siggy, she would have removed my child from me for this reason already.

If it were up to me, I might remove someone else's kid on chemotherapy.

We don't all agree on what constitutes "adequate medical care."

-----
Never be deceived that the rich will allow you to vote away their wealth. -- Lucy Parsons (1853-1942, labor activist and anarcho-communist)

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, November 29, 2011 10:06 PM

Beir bua agus beannacht

I'm glad we've come around to this topic CTS because it is the basis for the rumor I've heard about you, note that this rumor was stated out in the open on this forum, not in an email or anything. I would like to hear, in your own words, what the situation is with your kid, his health, why you decided to do what you did, or not do, and move to Peru where you don't have to do it.

You said some stuff in your last post that I find unsettling at best. First of all, kids often view their situation as normal, when they figure out it may not be depends on a lot of factors, but it is quite easy for a child to be being abused, given bruises, whipped etc. and to think its normal and okay, if they were raised to believe that it is an apropriate punishment then why would they doubt it unless friends at school find out and suggest otherwise etc. And most kids are taught to keep such things a secret anyways.

And then there's sexual abuse. Lets face it, sex and touching can feel very good physically, whether it is apropriate or not. So leaving it up to a young child to determine that it isn't okay isn't fair to that child. Children in general are adaptable and will accept a lot as normal until they're old enough/experienced enough to know better, which can vary wildly from person to person. Your policies on abuse "not being a one size fits all" concept scare me.

CTS, what do you think of parents who choose faith healing over other techniques like medicine? Do you think that is okay, especially when the kid is little and can't really speak for themself? In my state we're really tough on that kind of stuff and that's fine with me.

"A completely coherant River means writers don't deliver" KatTaya

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, November 29, 2011 10:20 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by canttakesky:

I think "abuse" needs to be collectively defined by the kids, the parents, and the community. First and foremost, the kids should have their say. If they feel abused and neglected, then their opinion should be taken very seriously by the community, even if the parents are doing what most parents in that situation are doing. Likewise, if they don't feel abused, that opinion should carry a lot of weight, despite how different the parents are.

I agree that the community needs to be in constant dialogue on this issue, so that consensus can be reached and understood by all. Children too should have a voice in that. I have a lot of problems with asking children on an individual basis whether they feel abused or not. That is not to say that we should not listen to them seriously about their concerns, I just don't think they need to be asked to make a judgement. For starters, infants and very young children, the most vulnerable are unable to have that voice, so that judgement does need to made by someone else. But even with older children I have a problem. If they have lived all their life with abuse, they may see it as the norm, even if it of a horrific nature. To some degree or another, all children suffer from stockholm syndrome. They love their parents, even if they are abusers and may try at all costs and protect their abusers and hide the abuse. Family violence creates very complex issues which may beyond young children to name or understand. AS they get older, of course, they see things more clearly and often vote with their feet. And that is the reason that Child Protection services intervene less often.

Quote:
I truly do not believe in a one-size-fits-all definition of abuse. All that leads to is a legal "standard of care" similar to the one used to defend medical decisions in court. Care becomes determined by conformity rather than what is best for the patient. Care becomes what covers the parents' legal asses rather than what is best for the child.

I have a lot of problems with abuse being seen as subjective, although I recognise that there are fuzzy areas and cultural complexities. That being said, I think as a society we do have a common set of values around abuse and I think its okay to underscore them with laws (as is the case). So in this society, it is never acceptable for an adult to have sex with a child. So even if a family deemed that was acceptable behaviour, it is not acceptable to the society at large and therefore it would be necessary for an external authority to protect a child. The same goes for cultural norms, which are unable to be tolerated if they violate laws.

Quote:
I think every community should have a "safehouse" or a hotline where children can get free counseling. This may be a church or a school program or a private charity outfit. (It doesn't have to be govt operated, but if it were, I wouldn't complain too much.) I believe strongly that the process of sussing out abuse needs to start with the kids. Not self-righteous neighbors or teachers or whatnot. The kids need to start the process of rescuing themselves.

A great idea. So good, that it already happens. Kidsline is a free telephone service that children can access to get help and counselling. You may have something similar in the States.

Quote:
Once the kids have expressed concern, then a team of volunteer community members (not paid govt employees with untold powers) can assess the situation privately with the children, and if possible, the parents as well. They can also come up with a collective plan for intervention short of removing custody.

I'd hope that government employees in the US never had unlimited powers. They certainly don't here. I think they may be room for community volunteers to be involved in some way, and I can tell you that over the years they have been - yes in the USA, with community mediators helping families with their issues. It is a great scheme that was also introduced here and I work in a similar field although I get paid (yay). Working with dysfunctional, abusive and traumatised families is hard, complex and harrowing work. Somewhere along the line, it is probably necessary for people with expertise to be involved to do assessments on families and when you have expertise, you usually need to be paid for it.

I know that child protection workers here try their hardest to keep families together and to offer support and education via a network of agencies, to look for short term alternative care within the wider family structure and that removal of children to foster care is done only in extreme circumstances. Maybe it doesn't actually happen often enough. I know that despite all this (having worked with these agencies) that the press still gives child protection services a hell of a time and, as ikiki pointed out earlier, a lot of misinformation is printed. I wonder if it is the same in the states?

Quote:
If the child needs to be removed forcibly from the parents, criminal charges should be filed. As such, all such proceedings should be transparent and public.

Criminal charges are sometimes filed. But these cases are complex and the criminal system may not always be an appropriate place to sort out these things. Child abuse and neglect often goes hand in hand with addiction issues, mental health problems and family breakdown. It may be that parents have an intellectual disability and just cannot meet the demands of an infant. It may be that a problem is temporary or permanent and needs either short term or long term measures.

In any case, yes there should be transparency for those involved, but I am not sure that publically airing family problems would necessarily serve the best interest of a child. Nonetheless, criminal cases would be public, and other matters should be handled a little more delicately by a court designated to deal with children's issues.

Quote:
Chronic emotional torture of a child should be a crime
Agreed. And you know it probably already is, if you checked the law. It's just that emotional abuse is so much harder to prove that if you have the broken bones and bruises. And conviction relies upon concrete evidence. So that is a hard one.

Quote:
Removal of custody must be a last resort instead of the first. (Right now, CPS pays lip service to this, but they don't actually abide by any such "last resort" policy.)

I'd certainly agree it should be a last resort. More troubling is that there is often no alternative to remaining in a family here, given the chronic shortage of foster care.

Quote:
So, in short, I support a two-phase intervention process. First, an informal one with community members. Second, in cases of severe abuse, a formal criminal procedure to remove the children and place the parents in jail.

At a kind of fundamental level, I can kind of agree in the two phase approach, but I feel you have over simplified a complex issue into something that would not be viable and would not support families or protect children.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, November 30, 2011 3:53 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by RionaEire:
I would like to hear, in your own words, what the situation is with your kid, his health, why you decided to do what you did, or not do, and move to Peru where you don't have to do it.

Thank you for asking me up front, instead of listening to people who lie about me. I appreciate it.

My child was born at home without medical intervention, happy and healthy at 95 percentile in weight. At 3 months of age, he started exhibiting severe eczema, gastrointestinal pain and vomiting, and failure to thrive. We tried various conventional medical interventions which actually made him worse. So we decided to try homeopathy, which improved some symptoms significantly (stopped vomiting and diarrhea), but did nothing for eczema and failure to thrive. His weight dipped below the charts. My MD physician recommended going to spend 3 months at a beach for his eczema. We couldn't afford a beach in the States, so we decided to go to a beach in South America. To our surprise, he got better in South America. So we decided to move down here.

In South America, his weight has steadily increased and his eczema disappeared entirely. He is now at 26th percentile for weight, and 54th percentile for height. He is happy and healthy and up to 3 months ago, he was entirely eczema free.

The last three months, some of his eczema has come back because they put up a new wifi antenna in our neighborhood. We are trying to fix that problem now.

When it comes to medical abuse, the proof is in the pudding. If it works, it is not abusive, no matter how much you may disagree with the method.

Quote:
but it is quite easy for a child to be being abused, given bruises, whipped etc. and to think its normal and okay, if they were raised to believe that it is an apropriate punishment then why would they doubt it unless friends at school find out and suggest otherwise etc.

Do you know any abused kids? They might think it is "normal" as in all other kids suffer such indignities as well, but they still know it causes them pain and want it to stop. It is not hard to find out they are being abused if anyone would pay amount of attention to them at all.

Quote:
And most kids are taught to keep such things a secret anyways.

Sure, for fear of punishment. But they aren't that good at keeping secrets. Again, attentiveness to and love for the child would suss the secret out without much effort.

Quote:
And then there's sexual abuse. Lets face it, sex and touching can feel very good physically, whether it is apropriate or not. So leaving it up to a young child to determine that it isn't okay isn't fair to that child.

I have never met a sexually abused child who thinks or thought it was okay and that it felt good. They feel deep shame, humiliation, and want it to stop.

Here is the bottom line, Rion. I trust kids. I trust their instincts and their ability to know when something isn't right. If you don't, then you would want to take over their decision making process and do things differently than I would. Different philosophical assumptions will lead to different solutions.

I know abused kids, both mildly abused and severely abused. They ALL know what they want to stop.

Quote:
Your policies on abuse "not being a one size fits all" concept scare me.

What scares you about it?

Quote:
CTS, what do you think of parents who choose faith healing over other techniques like medicine? Do you think that is okay, especially when the kid is little and can't really speak for themself?

Absolutely I think it is ok. As ok as Medicine is ok.

Medicine itself is nothing much more than witch doctoring and faith healing as well. The difference is YOU have faith in it, so this type of faith healing is completely acceptable to YOU. It really is a war of faiths, a war of different gods. It is a battle of "My healing god is better than your healing god."

I read a book written by parents who withheld insulin from their diabetic son, and he died--because they believed God would heal his diabetes. It was a very painful book, full of regret and sorrow and grief. They are in prison, as well they should be. If you are going to take away something that is working to substitute it for something that isn't working, then that constitutes abuse.

But that sword cuts both ways. If a kid who avoids gluten and food dyes and milk becomes able to focus and learn as long as he is on his diet, and you put that kid on hyperactivity medication which makes him a zombie, you are not improving that situation. If you take away an intervention that is working to substitute it for something that isn't working, putting him on meds should constitute abuse as well.

The point where either type of faith healing becomes NOT OKAY is when the kid gets hurt or gets worse. Then they should be looking for a different solution. When kids get worse on Medicine, they should be changing course as well. No double standards. What is good for the goose is good for the gander.

I am not saying I am right and you are wrong. This is simply where I am coming from.

-----
Never be deceived that the rich will allow you to vote away their wealth. -- Lucy Parsons (1853-1942, labor activist and anarcho-communist)

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, November 30, 2011 3:53 AM

Magon, I will address your post tomorrow. Not ignoring you. Good dialogue.

-----
Never be deceived that the rich will allow you to vote away their wealth. -- Lucy Parsons (1853-1942, labor activist and anarcho-communist)

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, November 30, 2011 7:56 AM

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.

Rion
Ahem. Well, the story that CTSky gave you is not the story she told 6 years ago.

Then, she indicated there WAS successful treatment available which she elected not to use:

My son has a relatively rare condition where he is allergic to or intolerant of all foods. It causes malaborption and undernourishment, which leads to failure to thrive (failure to grow). I suppose, if left untreated, they could die. The treatment is to put them on a special formula that contains no proteins for them to react to. The formula is slightly bitter, so babies refuse to drink it. Insertion of a feeding tube directly into the stomach or intestines is very common.

Once they are on this formula, they grow normally. But many of these kids remain dependent on this formula--it appears for the rest of their lives. They have food trials to find the few foods they can tolerate, but their main nourishment comes from drinking this stuff.

I opted for an alternative therapy because I don't want him to be dependent on formula for the rest of his life. It is working slowly, but it is working. The disadvantage is that it works slower than formula in helping him catch-up his growth. The advantage is it helps him to tolerate food better, whereas the formula doesn't. He can now eat most vegetables and grow at the same time. Most of his other symptoms are gone too, though not all yet.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, November 30, 2011 4:18 PM

Beir bua agus beannacht

Hi CTS, I'm glad that the climate in Peru is good for your family and that your son is doing well currently. Some kiddos do grow out of exima, it sounds like he was doing okay for a while, it was in remission, but its back again. My Rachie had pretty bad exima until she was about 13 or 14 and then she began growing out of the worst of it, what she has now as an adult is a lot less severe and doesn't cause much trouble at all from what I can tell, in comparison to how it used to be.

I just don't think abuse is okay. My grandma used to beat on my dad when he was a kid. It wasn't okay, even though she did love him, she was doing what she knew, how she was raised. It wasn't okay though and she really should have been advised about how to do things differently. She now says she wishes that she'd been taught another way to discipline since she realizes in hindsight that it wasn't okay. Was it still abuse? Technically yes because she would leave marks on him. I wouldn't minimalize it.

What you and I can agree on though is that taking children away should not be the first thing tried, in fact it should be a last resort in most cases. I think we can also agree on the idea that the child's needs should be considered first and formost. And yes, the primary ingredient in sexual abuse is shame, that is usually the top feeling that a child feels, shame and emotional pain. All I'm saying is that its such a deep and complicated thing that sometimes, for various reasons, little ones are afraid to come forward, or older ones too. So I don't think we should only address problems if the kid admits its a problem/initiates the helping process, but of course a kid being the first one to initiate can be good because it means that they are strong and brave and able to advocate for themselves, self advocacy should be encouraged with children, as well as with anyone else.

Faith healing: Why do people have to be so extreme, can't it be both instead of either/or? I'm a Christian and prayer is an important part of what I do in my life, the choices I make, the things I do. But that doesn't mean I shouldn't be doing everything else I can to help myself.

If something isn't working though I do agree that its good to try other things to see what one can find that does work, natural medicine, conventional medicine, both, etc.

I appreciate you telling me yourself because I'd rather hear things from a person than from hearsay. Its only fair.

I still think that faith healing alone is irresponsable, and from what I've experienced God doesn't reward irresponsability. It sounds like you agree.

"A completely coherant River means writers don't deliver" KatTaya

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, December 1, 2011 1:12 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by 1kiki:
Rion
Ahem. Well, the story that CTSky gave you is not the story she told 6 years ago.

Then, she indicated there WAS successful treatment available which she elected not to use:

I summarized this time, but it is absolutely same story. I don't appreciate your intimation that I am lying.

The formula helped him gain weight, but it made him sicker and vomit more. The vomiting had already stopped entirely with homeopathy, but the formula brought it back full force. When I stopped the formula, the vomiting stopped again. Also, as I pointed out originally, it is likely to result in lifelong dependence and intolerance of foods.

When you say it was a "successful" treatment, you are speaking of only one variable: weight gain. In all other respects, it wasn't successful. It made him worse.

As a parent, I have to weigh ALL costs and ALL the symptoms, not just one. I wanted a BETTER remedy, an intervention that will results in improvement in eczema, vomiting, diarrhea, increased food tolerance, AS WELL AS weight gain. I had to at least try to find this better intervention before I settled for the other one. Luckily, I found it. He now eats all foods but three and is thriving. As far as I am concerned, holding out for a better intervention saved him from a lifetime of misery that he would have been consigned to had we followed the "successful" conventional treatment.

In other words, some treatments are more "successful" than others. We were very lucky to have found a more successful treatment than the one we had before, because we didn't give up and weren't afraid to try new things.

-----
Never be deceived that the rich will allow you to vote away their wealth. -- Lucy Parsons (1853-1942, labor activist and anarcho-communist)

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, December 1, 2011 1:22 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by RionaEire:
I just don't think abuse is okay. My grandma used to beat on my dad when he was a kid. It wasn't okay, even though she did love him, she was doing what she knew, how she was raised. It wasn't okay though...

I absolutely agree with you that it is NOT okay and shouldn't be minimalized.

The truth is, I see minor to moderate abuse/neglect of kids EVERYWHERE. Hell, when I am here on RWED, you might even be right to accuse me of mild neglect of my kids. None of it is OK.

But I believe the solution to this widespread abuse/neglect is NOT CPS or child abuse intervention as we know it.

I think the long term solution has to be in education. Teach parents to treat children the way they themselves would want to be treated. Teach them to see kids as people too. First dialogue with compassion. If that fails, then take more aggressive intervention.

Yes, we agree on faith healing or any type of healing. It has to be responsible.

-----
Never be deceived that the rich will allow you to vote away their wealth. -- Lucy Parsons (1853-1942, labor activist and anarcho-communist)

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, December 1, 2011 1:57 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Magonsdaughter:
If they have lived all their life with abuse, they may see it as the norm, even if it of a horrific nature.

Of course, you are right about younger children. Someone else DOES have to speak for them.

But as far as "seeing it as the norm" goes, "norm" doesn't mean they see it as painless. They simply learn to assume that ALL kids live like that. They still want it to stop and will say so if given the chance.

Quote:
To some degree or another, all children suffer from stockholm syndrome. They love their parents, even if they are abusers and may try at all costs and protect their abusers and hide the abuse.

They would only hide the abuse if the consequences are very painful. That is, if they are threatened with worse punishments if they tell, they will lie and hide it. But at that level, you can tell they are in physical terror of their abusers, no matter what they say.

They would also hide the abuse if the punishment of their abusers is unacceptable, such as their parents going to court or being taken away from them. Yes, children love their parents, often despite how abusive they are. But don't mistake that love for unwillingness to tell the truth. If they knew they could tell the truth without getting their parents into "trouble," if telling the truth would change the circumstances at home, they would tell in a heartbeat.

My mother once beat me so badly I ran into the street barefoot to escape her. When she came after me, I ran into a neighbor's house. The neighbor called the police. I lied my ass off to keep my mother from getting into trouble legally. That plus a little bribe and the cops went away. I did NOT want to be taken away from my family.

BUT, had the neighbor befriended me and listened to me, I would have told them the truth. Had they tried to talk to my mother, I woulda told the truth. I, and other abused kids I know, would have told the truth had we felt SAFE to do so. Our system is set up so that kids feel UNSAFE either way, and that is a big problem.

Quote:
I have a lot of problems with abuse being seen as subjective, although I recognise that there are fuzzy areas and cultural complexities.

Obviously, I believe that some abuse is NOT subjective and ought to be criminalized. But short of abuse severe enough to be criminalized, I think an informal "jury" of community peers is good process for taking each individual situation and culture into account. If a formal jury is good enough for deciding guilt in criminal cases, a jury should be good enough to decide on intervention in less than criminal cases.

Quote:
So in this society, it is never acceptable for an adult to have sex with a child. So even if a family deemed that was acceptable behaviour, it is not acceptable to the society at large and therefore it would be necessary for an external authority to protect a child.

And I would agree to criminalize sex with children, including sending the perps to prison.

Quote:
Kidsline is a free telephone service that children can access to get help and counselling. You may have something similar in the States.

Problem with that is kids won't call if calling means removal from home. That is why I advocate less drastic intervention. Now in theory, CPS is supposed to work with the family and remove from home as a last resort. But we all know that in the USA at least, that is simply the luck of the draw. If you get a trigger happy worker, you lose your kids before you can blink.

Quote:
I'd hope that government employees in the US never had unlimited powers. They certainly don't here.

But they nearly do in the US. All they need is some kind of rationale, any kind of rationale--even a bruise on the knee from falling the day before--and they will whisk the kids away and worry about defending that decision later in court. The parents will have to PROVE their innocence to get them back. By then, the kids will already have suffered trauma and whatever else they experience in foster care.

Quote:
a lot of misinformation is printed. I wonder if it is the same in the states?

A lot of my perspective comes from personal experiences. I know a neighbor's child who is being sexually abused when she goes to visit her father (not by the dad but by someone else in his household). The mom, a doctor, and a nurse have filed complaints with CPS, but CPS has repeatedly refused to stop overnight visitation to the father. I know someone else who was threatened with removal (cops came to the door and everything) simply on a call being made, with absolutely no investigation whatsoever. Etc. The system in the USA is very broken, and I don't get that only from what I read.

Quote:
But these cases are complex and the criminal system may not always be an appropriate place to sort out these things. Child abuse and neglect often goes hand in hand with addiction issues, mental health problems and family breakdown. It may be that parents have an intellectual disability and just cannot meet the demands of an infant. It may be that a problem is temporary or permanent and needs either short term or long term measures.

Yes, cases are complex, which is why I advocate informal intervention first. For me it is an issue of severity. If the problem can be resolved without removal of custody, then keep it out of court. If removal must take place, then file criminal charges. A crime is a crime, even if the perp is addicted or mentally challenged. We don't make exceptions like that when they hurt adults--why should be make exceptions when they hurt children?

Quote:
Nonetheless, criminal cases would be public, and other matters should be handled a little more delicately by a court designated to deal with children's issues.

Delicacy, I don't have problems with, but transparency and oversight must be in place to a certain extent. If a case gets into the news, then a reporter must be able to get access to the general charges filed, even if they can't get the details.

Quote:
At a kind of fundamental level, I can kind of agree in the two phase approach, but I feel you have over simplified a complex issue into something that would not be viable and would not support families or protect children.

I disagree, since the main thrust of my proposal is to support families and children MORE than they are currently. But fair enough. We can disagree.

-----
Never be deceived that the rich will allow you to vote away their wealth. -- Lucy Parsons (1853-1942, labor activist and anarcho-communist)

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, December 1, 2011 6:03 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by canttakesky:
Yes, cases are complex, which is why I advocate informal intervention first. For me it is an issue of severity. If the problem can be resolved without removal of custody, then keep it out of court. If removal must take place, then file criminal charges. A crime is a crime, even if the perp is addicted or mentally challenged. We don't make exceptions like that when they hurt adults--why should be make exceptions when they hurt children?

So you would file criminal charges against a intellectualy disabled mother who didn't have the wherewithall to change her baby's nappies or go to her when she was crying? You'd send that person to jail?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, December 1, 2011 6:22 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Magonsdaughter:
So you would file criminal charges against a intellectualy disabled mother who didn't have the wherewithall to change her baby's nappies or go to her when she was crying? You'd send that person to jail?

No, of course not. I wouldn't take her baby from her to begin with. It is not the type of situation that requires removal of custody.

-----
Never be deceived that the rich will allow you to vote away their wealth. -- Lucy Parsons (1853-1942, labor activist and anarcho-communist)

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, December 1, 2011 7:15 AM

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.

CTSky

Apparently my mistake was to read your words and accept them at face value. I apologize and assure you it won't happen again.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, December 1, 2011 1:46 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by canttakesky:
Quote:
Originally posted by Magonsdaughter:
So you would file criminal charges against a intellectualy disabled mother who didn't have the wherewithall to change her baby's nappies or go to her when she was crying? You'd send that person to jail?
No, of course not. I wouldn't take her baby from her to begin with. It is not the type of situation that requires removal of custody.

So you'd let a baby be maltreated?????????

I appreciate that you see your system as flawed and you wish to advocate for children. I wish you well with this, and hope that it does improve. If it is as you describe, it needs serious attention. I am unable to argue with you on how your system is, only on how it works here. I do know that perceptions of child protection services can be distorted and I also know they vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. I find it very hard to believe that there is unlimited powers for public servants to remove children without some legal processes involved, and that children are removed for minor infractions such as bruised knees. BUt as I say, I have no way of arguing with you on what your system is, except that Rione seems to describe something a little less draconian and one that, for her brother, was compassionate towards the mother while protecting the child.

I agree that children need to have an age appropriate voice in all of this and what happens to them, and additionally need to be clearly informed - also age appropriate about what is happening. A safe service for kids to ring is essential. I also suspect that that exists in parts of the US, but perhaps is not widely known. But it is an excellent suggestion.
I also agree that parents should be offered support rather than simply removing a child. I might add that such support often comes at considerable cost, which is perhaps why it is not a first resort where you live.

I would be cautious about asking children to make decisions about their wellbeing, particularly young children but of course conceding more choice to older ones. I outlines some of the reasons why I think that is the case. A young child is unable to make difficult decisions relating to their wellbeing, which is why adults need to care for children, I think it becomes particularly difficult for children who suffer family violence because of the enmeshed and complex nature of family dynamics in these cases. Children may feel pain and discomfort but may not have the capacity to determine that what is happening to them is wrong.

Not all cases where children are removed involve abuse - certainly where I live - a parent who beats or sexual abuses a child will face criminal prosecution, and quite rightly. But there are parents who are unable to care adequately for their children because of their own issues. It may be that they can manage with help, or that sometimes removal may be required for a short period while the parent receives assistance, or that another family member can take over the care of a child. That is why professionals step in, to make an assessment. Long term removal of a child would have to be made with a judgement from a children's court (here) who takes over responsibility for a child - so it certainly isn't an easy or discretionary power held by a nameless public servant.

From what I have seen - and I am talking again about my own locality - people who work within these systems have a genuine care for children's wellbeing. They are being swamped with cases where children are suffering and finite resources to help them.

The way that I see it, is not that the government or any judicial system is to blame, it's just that as a society, western individual rights focused materialistic societies such as the US and Ausralia, on a systemic level we don't nurture our children adequately. Too many parents live in an isolated manner, and that includes the isolation of nuclear family units as well as single parent families. If mum or dad or both are not up to the task, which lets face it, can be demanding, exhausting and difficult, then what happens to the kids? In cultures which have stronger families and extended families and communities, kids are often passed on to someone who is better equiped than biological parents, and at least parents do get support, respite, advice and education from those around them. I think we do it badly in comparison and children suffer.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, December 1, 2011 2:20 PM

I didn't want to get involved with this conversation again, but I suppose I also can't leave CTS behind.

Quote:
So you would file criminal charges against a intellectualy disabled mother who didn't have the wherewithall to change her baby's nappies or go to her when she was crying? You'd send that person to jail?

....

So you'd let a baby be maltreated?????????

Based on your representation, it doesn't sound like you're satisfied with any solution. Which is fair, because it's a pretty awful scenario to start with, and all possible solutions may have their downsides. At the same time, I'm also not sure it's fair to react with shock when CTS merely tries to answer your scenarios, especially if she's damned if she does, and damned if she doesn't.

Anyway. On that particular issue, we don't necessarily know that a parent without "wherewithall" would continue mistreatment after being informed that their behaviour constitutes mistreatment. In addition, there might be other arrangements to compensate for a parent who is not always reliable or comprehending, without yet needing to remove the child.

Perhaps it may be necessary that some kind of case worker stay with that family or perform daily visits during the transition period where the parent is learning to prevent relapse or to reinforce some behaviour (and keep accidental mistreatment from continuing), but it may not be necessary at that point to remove the child.

Should it become necessary, either because the lesson can't be learned by the parent and the child is in continuing danger, other family members might be considered, and then FINALLY, removal might be considered. Or, if mistreatment were to continue out of malice instead of ignorance, then it would be abuse and intervention WOULD be needed.

Asking as you did if the opposition side of this debate would "let a baby be maltreated?????" is somewhat reactionary, and not representative of the argument being made.

1kiki: I'm very confused why you believe what CTS said means that you can not take her at face value. It almost implies you believe she is lying?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, December 1, 2011 2:37 PM

Beir bua agus beannacht

CTS, it sounds like we agree on most things here, we just have different ways of saying it. I'm glad that you guys found a solution so that your son is doing well.

WIth Magon's example of the developmentally different mother, I have to wonder who failed to look after her affectively in the first place, thus resulting in pregnancy and a baby? But it happens all too often so that point is not the thing here. I should hope that the thing tried/suggested would be for the woman and her child to live in a household with other family members. That way the woman and her child are both looked after and she can still be with her child and be part of its raising.

Magon's, our situation worked out really well but there are many that don't. Fortunately we knew my little brother and his mom already and so he was sent directly to us when he was taken away from his mother. The plan was for us to keep him until she took some classes, got stable, did the things she needed to do in order to get him back. But she was unable to get it together after two years of trying so we got to adopt him. She's stable and does fine in her apartment, takes care of her puppy, does her shopping etc. but she isn't built for parenting. We take my lil' bro over once a week to spend the evening with her, we drop him off and pick him up a couple of hours later. They have a nice time, she loves him and he loves her, she's just not built for parenting on her own. And since she lives up here away from her own family on her own is what she was doing.

"A completely coherant River means writers don't deliver" KatTaya

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, December 1, 2011 2:53 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Magonsdaughter:
So you'd let a baby be maltreated?????????

Should I feel saddened that you have to ask?

I have worked with disabled persons before who have many limitations, but still strive to live as independently as possible. They simply need some support. In cases of mentally retarded persons, they often need a helper to come in from time to time to check on them, continue training them in self-care tasks, etc. The type of external support varies, depending on the level of retardation and circumstances.

I would advocate leveraging all community and family support available for the mother and child in this case. If the mother is so seriously retarded that she could not manage even with support, then only as a very, very, very last resort would I remove custody, if possible, to a close relative. But in that case, there is probably no awareness of custody to begin with. No, of course, there would be no criminal charges here, but this scenario would be entirely an exception to the rule. Furthermore, I would not make removal of custody permanent--I would do everything to maintain that familial tie.

-----
Never be deceived that the rich will allow you to vote away their wealth. -- Lucy Parsons (1853-1942, labor activist and anarcho-communist)

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, December 1, 2011 2:57 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Bytemite:
I didn't want to get involved with this conversation again, but I suppose I also can't leave CTS behind.

You are too kind. :) (I hope that didn't offend you.)

Quote:

1kiki: I'm very confused why you believe what CTS said means that you can not take her at face value. It almost implies you believe she is lying?

Of course she does. She went from intimation that I'm lying to saying it outright via sarcasm.

-----
Never be deceived that the rich will allow you to vote away their wealth. -- Lucy Parsons (1853-1942, labor activist and anarcho-communist)

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, December 1, 2011 3:00 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Bytemite:
Based on your representation, it doesn't sound like you're satisfied with any solution. Which is fair, because it's a pretty awful scenario to start with, and all possible solutions may have their downsides. At the same time, I'm also not sure it's fair to react with shock when CTS merely tries to answer your scenarios, especially if she's damned if she does, and damned if she doesn't.

It's never good to assume an emotional reaction when you are interpreting someone's written words. I wasn't particularly shocked at CTS's reaction. My problem with CTS is the all or nothing quality to her statements. She says unequivocably "No, of course not. I wouldn't take her baby from her to begin with. It is not the type of situation that requires removal of custody" she doesn't say... depends on the case and the circumstances. So in her world view, I assume, that a child should never be removed from a mother who has an intellectual disability regardless of the level of care of the child, which may include chronic neglect and maltreatment. Not changing nappies and attending a crying baby is maltreatment.

Quote:
Anyway. On that particular issue, we don't necessarily know that a parent without "wherewithall" would continue mistreatment after being informed that their behaviour constitutes mistreatment. In addition, there might be other arrangements to compensate for a parent who is not always reliable or comprehending, without yet needing to remove the child.

Perhaps it may be necessary that some kind of case worker stay with that family or perform daily visits during the transition period where the parent is learning to prevent relapse or to reinforce some behaviour (and keep accidental mistreatment from continuing), but it may not be necessary at that point to remove the child.

Should it become necessary, either because the lesson can't be learned by the parent and the child is in continuing danger, other family members might be considered, and then FINALLY, removal might be considered. Or, if mistreatment were to continue out of malice instead of ignorance, then it would be abuse and intervention WOULD be needed.

Really Byte, have you actually read anything I have written? This is exactly what I have been saying.

Quote:

Asking as you did if the opposition side of this debate would "let a baby be maltreated?????" is somewhat reactionary, and not representative of the argument being made.

I think my initial response was a casual one, but I did go on to elaborate. Did you note that? My view is that CTS has a simplistic view of these matters and that was demonstrated by her response.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, December 1, 2011 3:09 PM

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.

CTSky

You said you are for anything that works. By your original account formula feeding works. But you elected not to use it, apparently for other reasons. Hence, by your posts, you contradicted yourself - you are NOT for ANYTHING that works, since you rejected something that worked.

Therefore, I will be less trusting of your words next time you post.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, December 1, 2011 3:14 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by canttakesky:
Quote:
Originally posted by Magonsdaughter:
So you'd let a baby be maltreated?????????
Should I feel saddened that you have to ask?

I have worked with disabled persons before who have many limitations, but still strive to live as independently as possible. They simply need some support. In cases of mentally retarded persons, they often need a helper to come in from time to time to check on them, continue training them in self-care tasks, etc. The type of external support varies, depending on the level of retardation and circumstances.

I would advocate leveraging all community and family support available for the mother and child in this case. If the mother is so seriously retarded that she could not manage even with support, then only as a very, very, very last resort would I remove custody, if possible, to a close relative. But in that case, there is probably no awareness of custody to begin with. No, of course, there would be no criminal charges here, but this scenario would be entirely an exception to the rule. Furthermore, I would not make removal of custody permanent--I would do everything to maintain that familial tie.

If you hadn't been so cut and dried to start off with, I wouldn't have responded the way that I did.

I don't see this case as an exception to the rule, but one of many scenarios where child protection services and/or family support services may need to be involved. Similar scenarios exist where parents have mental illnesses, drug or alcohol problems etc etc. Parents who don't manage their own lives will struggle to care adequately for children, and abuse is often the end result for parents not managing. The earlier intervention takes place then the more likely that abuse will be prevented.

You have seen no argument from me that removing a child should be a last resort, I wonder why you continue to state this.

The difference is regarding your claim that removal should only take place where criminal charges have been laid, and I think I given a number of examples where charges would not be laid, and children could be removed, which you have also conceded.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, December 1, 2011 3:16 PM

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.

"I have to wonder who failed to look after her affectively in the first place, thus resulting in pregnancy and a baby?"

There are legal issues of custodianship. Someone who is of age and doesn't meet the legal requirements for custodial care (giving others control over their lives, including medical decisions like birth control) are free to do whatever they wish, whether they have the wherewithal or not.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, December 1, 2011 3:21 PM

Beir bua agus beannacht

I'm aware of that technicality Kiki, but there is a lot of looking after and teaching about good choice making that can still go on, and should still go on.

"A completely coherant River means writers don't deliver" KatTaya

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, December 1, 2011 3:43 PM

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.

It's not just a 'technicality'. Grown people with less acute minds have wishes, personalities and impulses all their own. You can be kind, concerned, patient, caring and involved - but if they want something, don't understand the reasons why not, might be too fidgety to listen, are perhaps slightly oppositional, impulsive - or whatever - there is nothing you can do to stop them. I liken it sometimes to leading a bull by a silk thread. They have to want to go along. When it comes to their choices, in the end, no matter how bad you think their choice is, they are free to make it. And bad choices are not necessarily a failure of family, friends, or 'the system' to be involved.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, December 1, 2011 3:58 PM

Magons: Hmm. All right.

1kiki: I think you're being unfair to CTS. I don't believe your interpretation is what she meant - what I read is that she feels that the traditional medical treatment would have resulted in harm for her child, and that her trying ANYTHING was in regards to trying to find something that would not cause harm.

It's almost seeming like you want to think the worst of her. That's just how this is coming across.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, December 1, 2011 4:00 PM

Rione, the point was not to go into the whys and wherefores of a particular example, but to ackowledge, as you have done, that some people who are parents are not really equipped to be parents, and may never get to that stage regardless of support or education.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, December 1, 2011 4:01 PM

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.

Also, I have been thinking about how to answer your question re the ill child in my life. I try to not delve into the details of others I know, since I don't want to infringe on their privacy. But if this helps explain it - I've had three Chinese coworkers all say the same thing, which is that I am 'the second mother'.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, December 1, 2011 4:19 PM

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.

"... what I read is that she feels that the traditional medical treatment would have resulted in harm for her child, and that her trying ANYTHING was in regards to trying to find something that would not cause harm."

OK - what I read was this - in her first post she posited that lack of effective treatment would result in death. Then she said that formula was effective. But she rejected the effective treatment, in effect risking her son's death, in order to try something unknown.

I've seen situations where there was NO effective treatment. I can understand desperation to try something, ANYTHING to help. >> MY << first impulse is to guard life at all costs. The rest can be unscrambled later. So I find her decision to some extent - you fill in the blank.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, December 1, 2011 4:46 PM

Look, I think homeopathy is hookum too, and I've even said as much to her face, but you're acting like she was deliberately trying to kill her child, rather than merely trying to make decisions based on what she knew and heard when her child came down with a unexpected disorder.

It's not like it's her fault her child got sick. You know, my grandmother on my mothers side died earlier this year, there were all kinds of complications. Is there any point we could have prevented that, any treatment we could have done besides what the doctor's had her on? I don't know. CTS made a choice, it actually ended up working out. She choose what she thought would cause the least harm INCLUDING her child not dying. It's not a question of living versus dying but with food tolerance, for her it was a question of living with reduced quality of life versus living and developing food tolerance. In my book that's all that matters in regards to her character, and does not suggest to me, at all, that anything was more important to her than the life of her child.

Have you asked her, if her alternative treatment had clearly not been working, if she would have gone back to the formula? Because I'm getting the impression she would have. Trying alternatives that seem more promising before trying recommended treatment does not make someone evil, nor a terrible mother. It just means someone is in a hard place and they're exploring their options.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, December 1, 2011 5:53 PM

Maybe it might be good to divert this thread back to the topic, and away from personal discussions around CTS and her parenting.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, December 1, 2011 6:22 PM

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.

Good idea.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, December 1, 2011 6:48 PM