Parents beware.
bgre...@boston.ne
the Children Hospital..
Read the story in todays Boston Globe.
Few quotes:
[...]
"No hospital is more identified with the issue of child abuse than Children's.
Other hospitals refer cases of suspected abuse there. Its doctors carry great
weight both with DSS and the courts; their testimony can send an accused
abuser to jail or place a child in foster care.
Whenever a baby is brought to the Children's emergency room with unexplained
bruises, lacerations, fractures, or other injuries, the case is referred to the
hospital's child protection team, which includes a social worker, a
pediatrician,
a lawyer, and a nurse."
[...]
"Critics say that although the 51A is supposed to be only a preliminary finding,
the Children's team becomes too wedded to its initial diagnosis of abuse, and
neglects to examine other possibilities.
They are predisposed to find abuse,'' says Rita Pollak, a former DSS attorney
who now represents parents accused of abuse. ``I don't know of any case I've
been involved with where Children's Hospital hasn't found abuse. At least once,
you would hope, a case would come out of that unit and they would say we
don't see abuse here.''"
[...]
"Born two months premature, the baby had been so fussy that Diaz had taken
her to a Jamaica Plain health clinic seven or eight times. The pediatrician
there recommended changing the infant's formula or using a pacifier, but neither
worked.
So, with her three sons in tow and her baby in her arms, Diaz went to the
Children's emergency room. At first, the Santo Domingo, Dominican Republic,
native was told that the infant had a bone infection. Finally, at 1 a.m., two
DSS social workers appeared. They asked whether anyone else had taken care of
the baby, and whether the child had fallen. Bewildered, Diaz said no.
Then the social workers explained why they were questioning her. Her baby had
28 fractures, they said, and would stay in the hospital while DSS took custody
of Diaz's three sons. The boys screamed and clung to their mother's leg and
clothes until police pried them away. "
[...]
Newberger, who Children's said is unavailable for comment because he is
writing a book, may have had no doubts. But other specialists did. Hilda Iris
Lopez, Diaz's court-appointed attorney, sent the medical records to Dr. Philippe
Walravens, a bone specialist at the University of Colorado. According to
Walravens, the baby's premature birth, low blood counts, and nursing with soy
formula, which binds metals before they can be absorbed, all suggested copper
deficiency. "
Long article with the detailed description of many cases.
A must read !
Tae Hyong Kim
* If you child is injured, think twice before coming to
* the Children Hospital..
[Globe quotes snipped]
If my child was *really* injured, I'd make a beeline for Children's. It's
one of the few Level I pediatric trauma centers in the area - Mass.
General, NEMC, being the others. Damn good hospital, damn fine people. I
haven't had the chance to read the article, but a 51A - report of abuse, is
not a voluntary report. By that I mean that police, fire, and medical
people are *mandated* to report suspected abuse to children and the
elderly, or face stiff penalties.
People who work in medicine or public safety *must* have a high index of
suspicion when it comes to children's safety. A physician once explained to
me that in order to catch nearly all operable cases of appendicitis, one
must have a high index of suspicion and overdiagnose - and occasionally
take out a healthy appendix. Only 90% of the operated cases may have
appendicitis, but you've treated 100% of the appendicitis that you've
encountered. The point of my analogy is this: while there may be people who
are mistakenly suspected of child abuse, it is the price of maintaining a
high level of suspicion - and possibly saving the life of a child who may
not present such a cut-and-dried case of abuse.
Besides - even if I was accused of child abuse by bringing my child to
Children's, I'd still feel better that I'd taken him to a hospital equipped
to handle his injuries. Until a better way of determining abuse is
established - or mind-reading finally becomes popular, I'd have to say that
it must remain this way.
I wondering what ne.general's take on this article is - alarmist?
Sensationalist?
- Tae
"Inter caeco regnat luscus."
D. Margulis
>
[big snip]
The point of my analogy is this: while there may be people who
> are mistakenly suspected of child abuse, it is the price of maintaining a
> high level of suspicion - and possibly saving the life of a child who may
> not present such a cut-and-dried case of abuse.
>
Until a better way of determining abuse is
> established - or mind-reading finally becomes popular, I'd have to say that
> it must remain this way.
>
Whoa there! What happened to the presumption of innocence?
The price of driving a car is that I may get into an accident. The price
of living in an exotic foreign land and having a job with the State
Department is that I may be the victim of a terrorist attack. These are
risks I can control. But the price of seeking treatment for my kid's
injury should not be that I am presumed guilty of abuse. That's a total
corruption of the principles of individual liberty against incursion by
the state that this country was founded on. (I'm not some raving lunatic
militiaman, just trying to pay the price of my own liberty, which is
eternal vigilance.)
We are suffering from mass hysteria in this country when it comes to
child abuse. Yes, it does go on. Yes, some children are tragically
victimized. Yes the media sensationalize the issue and we swallow most
of what they feed us. But we have grossly overreacted.
The number of children abducted and killed by strangers has remained
roughly constant, in the neighborhood of 300 a year, for as long as
records have been kept. So the real danger of that particular crime has
held steady or declined (with an increasing population). But the
paranoia that has set in because of media coverage of a few spectacular
cases has led to an overprotectiveness that is a huge disservice to our
children.
Or look at the hysteria surrounding recovered memories of abuse that has
led to the imprisonment of day care operators and workers in a number of
communities, only to have the truth emerge years later and the
convictions vacated.
I am not in denial about abuse. I've seen strangers on the street whack
their kids. I know there is plenty of real abuse out there. But let's
apply a little common sense, too. Sometimes, just maybe, the parents are
telling the truth.
Adam M Gaffin
Tae Hyong Kim <tk...@shore.net> wrote:
>
>I wondering what ne.general's take on this article is - alarmist?
>Sensationalist?
Read the article first, then come back here and tell us if you still
think those of us who shuddered throughout it are alarmist.
It wasn't just that Children's filed an abuse report, it was that they did
so in the face of considerable evidence - and differing opinions from a
number of doctors - that the child in question suffered from a rare,
hereditary disorder that made him extremely prone to bone fractures.
Equally disturbing are the allegations that some of the doctors involved
tried to revise their report to make it seem that new fractures - that
could only have happened after the state had already taken the children
away - were old fractures that they had missed on earlier X-rays.
As good as Children's - or any Boston hospital is - they can make mistakes
(look at the Betsy Lehman case). What's scary as a new parent is how
Children's and DSS are so quick to assume child abuse, even in the face of
strong evidence to the contrary.
--
Adam Gaffin
ad...@world.std.com / (508) 820-7433
Lookee: A new URL for Boston Online!
http://www.boston-online.com
Betsy Schwartz
child abuse - parents and children may be separated without warning or
appeal, and kept apart for MONTHS - and to an infant, even a minute of
separation from a parent is an eternity.
I'm a parent and I know how important it is to protect children,
but there should be some way of separating the urgent cases (perhaps
children who are beaten, unkempt, found alone) from the cases such as the
Globe covered where you had well-cared for children with some disputed
X-ray evidence of old fractures.
I think children are taken away because the system is set up to be
all-or-nothing. It is cheaper to take a child into foster care than it is
to do immediate and multiple followup visits to the child's family. The
system is so broken that it takes MONTHS to investigate- so children are
taken away for MONTHS. Ironically, it is also not possible to do thorough
investigation of the *foster* parents, so some children are injured or even
killed in foster homes.
When my daughter was twelve months old, I slipped while carrying her
downstairs, and broke her leg. Taking her to the emergency room was a
TERRIFYING experience. I was SO afraid of the possibility that someone
might think of taking her away!
The first doctor did not diagnose the fracture. My daughter's regular
doctor caught it the next day, and he said the fracture was not the type
you see in abuse cases. I wonder, though, if I would have had the same
treatment if I'd been a frazzled mom of color in an inner-city hospital,
with a doctor who did not know us.
--
bet...@shore.net http://www.shore.net/~betsys
bet...@cs.umb.edu http://www.cs.umb.edu/~betsys
If this looks funny the baby is trying to help me type!
Ron Newman
tk...@shore.net (Tae Hyong Kim) wrote:
> while there may be people who
> are mistakenly suspected of child abuse, it is the price of maintaining a
> high level of suspicion - and possibly saving the life of a child who may
> not present such a cut-and-dried case of abuse.
Have you read the article? It clearly describes an out-of-control
process at Children's Hospital. Until it is fixed, parents may be
reluctant to take their bone-fractured children to that hospital
for treatment, lest they be falsely accused of child abuse. Is that
a good thing?
--
Ron Newman rne...@thecia.net
http://www2.thecia.net/users/rnewman/
Barry Shein
From: Betsy Schwartz <bet...@shore.net>
>I found it scary. THere is no presumption of innocence when it comes to
>child abuse - parents and children may be separated without warning or
>appeal, and kept apart for MONTHS - and to an infant, even a minute of
>separation from a parent is an eternity.
Although I certainly agree with your concern, and it is something
which should be scrutinized very, very closely, this "presumption of
innocence" protest isn't quite the right face to paint on it.
There are many crimes, many involving violence, which you can be
locked up for, with bail denied, even though you are "presumed
innocent" until you are tried and you may well end up being judged not
guilty and walk (there's also the whole "flight risk" thing but let's
skip that for now.)
So although in many ways it's heart-wrenching and a most serious
matter, it's not actually unusual for the justice system to take
decisive, forceful action with individuals whom they believe have been
involved in a crime if it's decided that their freedom, even if they
are "presumed innocent", represents some potential threat to
others.
There's no special, unprecedented behavior involved here, really,
other than one's perception of the harm caused by an error (which
seems to me to be a very valid concern.)
That said, I would hope that it's as easy and expeditious to get a
judicial hearing (that is, within hours) on such a separation as it is
to get a bail hearing. Otherwise it truly is a case of justice delayed
being justice denied.
--
-Barry Shein
Software Tool & Die | b...@world.std.com | http://www.world.com
Purveyors to the Trade | Voice: 617-739-0202 | Login: 617-739-WRLD
Lee Rudolph
>From: Betsy Schwartz <bet...@shore.net>
>>I found it scary. THere is no presumption of innocence when it comes to
>>child abuse - parents and children may be separated without warning or
>>appeal, and kept apart for MONTHS - and to an infant, even a minute of
>>separation from a parent is an eternity.
>
>Although I certainly agree with your concern, and it is something
>which should be scrutinized very, very closely, this "presumption of
>innocence" protest isn't quite the right face to paint on it.
>
>There are many crimes, many involving violence, which you can be
>locked up for, with bail denied, even though you are "presumed
>innocent" until you are tried and you may well end up being judged not
>guilty and walk (there's also the whole "flight risk" thing but let's
>skip that for now.)
>
>So although in many ways it's heart-wrenching and a most serious
>matter, it's not actually unusual for the justice system
Yabbut the (part of the) story Betsy's commenting on is
*well before* "the justice system" properly so-called
got involved. Doctors, nurses, and social workers aren't
part of "the justice system", are they? There is, for instance,
no codified, enforceable (even in theory), notion of "due process"
when dealing with them in such situtations, is there?
>to take
>decisive, forceful action with individuals whom they believe have been
>involved in a crime if it's decided that their freedom, even if they
>are "presumed innocent", represents some potential threat to
>others.
>
>There's no special, unprecedented behavior involved here, really,
>other than one's perception of the harm caused by an error (which
>seems to me to be a very valid concern.)
>
>That said, I would hope that it's as easy and expeditious to get a
>judicial hearing (that is, within hours) on such a separation as it is
>to get a bail hearing. Otherwise it truly is a case of justice delayed
>being justice denied.
Your question here (expressed as a hope) goes to the "due process"
question I raised above. I think the answer, alas, is "No".
Lee Rudolph
Tae Hyong Kim
rne...@thecia.net (Ron Newman) wrote:
* In article <tkim-ya02408000R...@news.shore.net>,
* tk...@shore.net (Tae Hyong Kim) wrote:
*
* > while there may be people who
* > are mistakenly suspected of child abuse, it is the price of maintaining a
* > high level of suspicion - and possibly saving the life of a child who may
* > not present such a cut-and-dried case of abuse.
*
* Have you read the article?
No, Ron, I hadn't when I posted - though I'd said as much in that post.
* It clearly describes an out-of-control process at Children's Hospital.
* Until it is fixed, parents may be reluctant to take their bone-fractured
* children to that hospital for treatment, lest they be falsely accused
* of child abuse. Is that a good thing?
I've since read the article, and while the cases highlighted are more
obvious incidents of an out-of-control process, the article fails to
mention (or I didn't read closely enough) how many cases turn out to be
this way out of all of the cases reported. The flip-side of this that only
clear-cut cases of child abuse will reported, while other, more
questionable cases may be ignored for fear of being wrong, with the
attendant consequences of _that_ action. Neither one seems aceeptable to
me.
Tae Hyong Kim
* In article <tkim-ya02408000R...@news.shore.net>,
* Tae Hyong Kim <tk...@shore.net> wrote:
* >People who work in medicine or public safety *must* have a high index of
* >suspicion when it comes to children's safety. A physician once explained to
* >me that in order to catch nearly all operable cases of appendicitis, one
* >must have a high index of suspicion and overdiagnose - and occasionally
* >take out a healthy appendix. Only 90% of the operated cases may have
* >appendicitis, but you've treated 100% of the appendicitis that you've
* >encountered. The point of my analogy is this: while there may be people who
* >are mistakenly suspected of child abuse, it is the price of maintaining a
* >high level of suspicion - and possibly saving the life of a child who may
* >not present such a cut-and-dried case of abuse.
*
* What if appendectomies had a 50% mortality rate, and the lack of
* an appendix impaired major life functions in the survivors? Would
* it still be acceptable to remove all those healthy appendices because
* it might save one life?
David, you're getting into a depth of medicine that I'm not familiar with -
me being a field paramedic, and not a surgeon. But if an inflamed appendix
is not removed, bursts, and releases intestinal contents into the
peritoneum, chances are very good that that that person will develop sepsis
- a total body infection. That, untreated, produces a mortality rate of
close to 100%.
Again, with your scenario, if removing an appendix yields a 50% mortality
rate and impaired major life functions, one would have to choose the risks
of that versus a near 100% mortality rate for untreated sepsis secondary to
a burst appendix.
Besides, the odds and complications you're proposing seems more on the
level of a major organ transplant. Not the same risk as an appendectomy,
and certainly under greater scrutiny throughout the treatment process.
* What is the price of a false child abuse report?
For the family under scrutiny, I'd say a horrible price.
For the children under scrutiny due to the same, high level of suspicion,
system-wide, perhaps a life or more saved.
While I agree that the cases described are tragic, one could make a case
that for every family falsely accused, there may be an equivalent or
greater number of children who are saved from further abuse - or possibly
death, because of the high level of suspicion. Well, at least from a
utilitarian point of view, perhaps.
* (My 18-month-old son has an hemangioma that presents as a big
* bump on his head. And his 3-year-old sister isn't always entirely
* gentle with him. I fear that some young health care worker will
* misdiagnose child endangerment. It would be bad.)
I agree. But, if I were to report only obvious, clear-cut cases of abuse,
perhaps it would be at the cost of several children whose cases are more
vague.
Tae Hyong Kim
wrote:
* In article <tkim-ya02408000R...@news.shore.net>,
* Tae Hyong Kim <tk...@shore.net> wrote:
* >
* >I wondering what ne.general's take on this article is - alarmist?
* >Sensationalist?
*
* Read the article first, then come back here and tell us if you still
* think those of us who shuddered throughout it are alarmist.
I never said that I thought anyone posting here was an alarmist - I was
asking what people thought of the tone of the article. Perhaps a fine
distinction, but a pretty important one.
I finally got a chance to read the article - I don't normally get the
Sunday Globe. Indeed scary. The featured incidents remind me of an episode
of "St. Elsehwere", where an infant, standing on the seat of a kitchen
chair, fell forward, fracturing both tibias (becuase of the way the
infant's feet locked under the seat back) - while his mother had her backed
turned to him while doing dishes. Dr. Erlich (I think) accuses her of child
abuse, due to the rather rare incidence of bilateral leg fractures. And the
fact that she was in the saem room as her infant, but couldn't explain how
the accident happened.
* It wasn't just that Children's filed an abuse report, it was that they did
* so in the face of considerable evidence - and differing opinions from a
* number of doctors - that the child in question suffered from a rare,
* hereditary disorder that made him extremely prone to bone fractures.
* Equally disturbing are the allegations that some of the doctors involved
* tried to revise their report to make it seem that new fractures - that
* could only have happened after the state had already taken the children
* away - were old fractures that they had missed on earlier X-rays.
*
* As good as Children's - or any Boston hospital is - they can make mistakes
* (look at the Betsy Lehman case). What's scary as a new parent is how
* Children's and DSS are so quick to assume child abuse, even in the face of
* strong evidence to the contrary.
After reading the article, it seems that Children's is a bit
overprotective, and perhaps unwilling to admit it makes mistakes. Still,
being a mandated reporter of 51As as a function of my job, I'd hate to
*not* report something that's unexplained, or suspicious-looking, for fear
that it might turn up later as a case of child abuse - or worse. Perhaps in
way, that's the prevailing attitude of people who're involved with helping
children. Not that I'd go the lengths that Children's has, but knowing that
you might be the only one who has a chance to intervene ...
Tae Hyong Kim
* In article <tkim-ya02408000R...@news.shore.net>,
* Tae Hyong Kim <tk...@shore.net> wrote:
* >In article <ExHF0...@world.std.com>, che...@post.harvard.edu wrote:
* >David, you're getting into a depth of medicine that I'm not familiar with -
* >me being a field paramedic, and not a surgeon. But if an inflamed appendix
*
* Just made-up numbers. I'm no expert on appendices.
Oh, I know they're hypotheticals, but I wanted to make sure everyone knew
from what educational and experiential background I was talking from.
* >is not removed, bursts, and releases intestinal contents into the
* >peritoneum, chances are very good that that that person will develop sepsis
* >- a total body infection. That, untreated, produces a mortality rate of
* >close to 100%.
* >
* >Again, with your scenario, if removing an appendix yields a 50% mortality
* >rate and impaired major life functions, one would have to choose the risks
* >of that versus a near 100% mortality rate for untreated sepsis secondary to
* >a burst appendix.
*
* Excluded middle: Do more tests before operating. That is, unanalogy,
* suspect child abuse if you wish, but examine things more before
* assuming guilt. Here in Woburn (it's _always_ here in Woburn) DSS
* was trying to take away a kid because his father struck him from
* time to time with a belt. 209A (domestic abuse orders) are even
* more abused, since in a divorce there is a party who has a strong
* personal interest in making the subject look bad.
By all means do more tests to firm up the assessment, I agree. But in one
particular case, where an X-ray showed five or more fractures, and the
definitive test (DNA, I believe) would take longer than a few hours, would
you allow a child who sustained unexplained multiple fractures to go home
with his/her parents?
What I'm saying is that the definitive test takes longer than the ER visit,
and faced with such injuries, one would hesitate in letting a child go back
home. Who knows what'll happen once they get home?
* >Besides, the odds and complications you're proposing seems more on the
* >level of a major organ transplant. Not the same risk as an appendectomy,
* >and certainly under greater scrutiny throughout the treatment process.
*
* Are those odds near the costs of kidnapping a child?
Kidnapping seems an emotionally charged word to use. Again, while I don't
agree with Children's reluctance to admit wrongdoing far into the process,
I firmly agree that faced with a child with unexplained multiple fractures,
and a definitive test for a rare disease that would take longer to perform
than the ER visit would take, I'd definitely err on the side of safety, and
take the child into custody. The mistake the Children's made was further
along the process.
* >While I agree that the cases described are tragic, one could make a case
* >that for every family falsely accused, there may be an equivalent or
* >greater number of children who are saved from further abuse - or possibly
* >death, because of the high level of suspicion. Well, at least from a
* >utilitarian point of view, perhaps.
*
* Are those numbers borne out?
Can't say, since it one would have to review all the 51As filed during a
certain period of time, and prior to that, develop some type of objective
standard to what would be considered a case that would've passed through a
lower level of suspicion.
Mark Atwood
> *
> * Are those odds near the costs of kidnapping a child?
>
> Kidnapping seems an emotionally charged word to use.
That's true.
It's also the correct word to use.
--
Mark Atwood |He who joyfully marches to music in rank and file has already
m...@pobox.com|earned my contempt. He has been given a large brain by mistake,
|since for him the spinal cord would fully suffice. -- Einstein
H.Selvitella
Kim) wrote:
[...]
> Who knows what'll happen once they get home?
Where did you obtain the RIGHT to ask that question?
As a public busybody you may contemplate all such imponderable
profundities and gossip with your like-minded neighbors to your
heart's content. But the hysteria your inconclusive meanderings
produces is insufficient to justify imposing public intrusion
into the home and between parent and child, child and parent. You
are not authorized to invade and to destroy the American family
as a balm to your political hysteria.
Navigate your PUBLIC concern into the nooks and crannies of the
STATE bureacracy that has taken upon itself the care and nurture
of those children whom have been torn out of the home provided by
their families, your report on which will be regarded as a
service to humanity.
Ponder the question "Who KNOWS what DOES happen to those children
who have been SAVED from their families, RESCUED from their homes
by the all knowing, all loving STATE?"
Please.
jaygal...@my-dejanews.com
MOTHERS AND FATHERS TO ADDRESS.
This just gives the 'system' a means to 'discredit' any form of addressing a
need to hold the system accountable!!
-Original Message-----
From: Chris <cdd...@ouray.cudenver.edu>
Newsgroups: alt.parenting.spanking,misc.kids
Date: Thursday, August 13, 1998 1:44 PM
Subject: Re: Suzanne Shell & Parents March on Washington
: Although not all supporters of the Parents March on Washington :agree with
National Spokesperson Suzanne Shell's view that "a bruise from :a spanking
does not constitute abuse," some supporters do. I received the :following
from Barbara Lyn Lapp of Chautauqua V.O.C.A.L. :(nll...@netsync.net), a
sponsoring organization of the Parents March. :Ms. Lap has given me
permission to quote her. : :Chris : :
:-------------------------------------------------------- : :On Wed, 12 Aug
1998, Chris <cdd...@ouray.cudenver.edu> wrote: :> :> I was shocked and
concerned to learn that the self-described :>National Spokesperson for the
Parents March on Washington had publically :>defended bruising a child's
bottom as not constituting child abuse, : :Come off it. What's worse, a
two-day bruise on a boy's behind, or a lifetime :bruising of the soul by
being removed from the safety of family? Who is landing :in prisons,
graduates from foster care, or graduates from parental authority? :Blame our
parents and grandparents for bruising our behinds and turning us into
:normal, responsible adults. Did you ever see the poem, America was
:Schoolmasters? One verse goes: : :They took small wiry children, wild as
panthercats, :And turned them into sunny, reasoning democrats. :They started
at the bottom, and built up strong and sweet, :They shaped their minds and
morals, with switches on the seat. : :(That's from memory-I may not have
every word right.) But keep in mind that :there's more than one way to define
abuse, and the state has done a mighty bad :job of making that definition. We
can go to Washington with that message. : :Barbara Lyn Lapp
:---------------------------------------------------------------------------
::DebKovalak wrote: :> :> FYI, :> :> Deb Kovalak :> Cleveland, OHIO :>
www.Join-Hands.com
:> -----Original Message-----
:> From: Ken_S...@webtv.net <Ken_S...@webtv.net>
:> To: debko...@worldnet.att.net <debko...@worldnet.att.net>
:> Date: Sunday, August 02, 1998 9:24 AM
:> Subject: Re: Spanking as Legitimate Parental Choice
:>
:> :Thought you might like to look at this
:> :
:>
:---------------------------------------------------------------------------
:> ---
:> :
:> :This message was forwarded to you from Deja News by
Ken_S...@webtv.net.
:> :Deja News, the discussion network, offers free web-based access to more
:> than
:> :50,000 high-quality discussion forums. Come and visit us on the web at
:> :http://www.dejanews.com/=zzz_maf/
:> :
:>
:---------------------------------------------------------------------------
:> ---
:> :(beginning of original message)
:> :
:> :Subject: Re: Spanking as Legitimate Parental Choice
:> :From: cdd...@ouray.cudenver.edu (Chris)
:> :Date: 1998/08/02
:> :Newsgroups: alt.parenting.spanking
:> :Fab4Fan99 (fab4...@aol.com) wrote:
:> :: >Why do you people who deny spanking as a legitimate form of
discipline
:> always
:> :: >have to go to the extreme, and idiocy, to express your opinion? NO
ONE
:> has
:> :: >suggested whippings, or beatings, or scalding hot water, or other
forms
:> of
:> :: >abuse but you who supposedly are against abusing children.
:> :
:> :: I understand that. My question is, where do you draw the line? You say
:> beating
:> :: is a form of abuse, but spanking is not. Fine. Where's the line
between a
:> :: spanking and a beating.
:> :
:> : As I recently discovered while lurking on the "spankingparents"
:> :prospank discussion group at http://www.onelist.com, Suzanne Shell,
:> :national spokesperson for the upcoming "Parent's March On Washington,"
:> :considers a "spanking" done with a martinet which leaves bruises to
*not*
:> :constitute abuse. (Those who think I am making this up are welcome to
see
:> :for themselves. Her message is in archive #82.)
:> :
:> :: Hitting "this hard" is a spanking. Hitting a little bit
:> :: harder is what? Hitting a little bit harder than that is what? Where
do
:> you
:> :: draw the line? I draw the line at not hitting at all.
:> :
:> : "No hitting" is the *only* clear place to draw the line. As soon
:> :as we allow *any* form of hitting of children, there will be parents
:> :abusing their kids and claiming that all they are doing is "spanking"
:> :them, and believing themselves to be telling the truth when they make
such
:> :claims. Only a Sweden-style antispanking law will get these people's
:> :attention, imo.
:> :
:> :Chris
:> :
:> :
:> :(end of original message)
:>
:---------------------------------------------------------------------------
:> ---
:> :
:>
:
:
:---------------------------------------------
:To unsubscribe send an email to:
:requ...@talklist.com
:with
:UNSUBSCRIBE LIONS
:in the BODY of the message.
:
:
In article <rnewman-ya0240800...@enews.newsguy.com>,
rne...@thecia.net (Ron Newman) wrote:
> In article <tkim-ya02408000R...@news.shore.net>,
> tk...@shore.net (Tae Hyong Kim) wrote:
>
> > while there may be people who
> > are mistakenly suspected of child abuse, it is the price of maintaining a
> > high level of suspicion - and possibly saving the life of a child who may
> > not present such a cut-and-dried case of abuse.
>
> Have you read the article? It clearly describes an out-of-control
> process at Children's Hospital. Until it is fixed, parents may be
> reluctant to take their bone-fractured children to that hospital
> for treatment, lest they be falsely accused of child abuse. Is that
> a good thing?
>
> --
> Ron Newman rne...@thecia.net
> http://www2.thecia.net/users/rnewman/
>
-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
http://www.dejanews.com/rg_mkgrp.xp Create Your Own Free Member Forum
Tae Hyong Kim
* Many of the most boneheaded mistakes that social workers have
* made -- such as the woman in New York State who temporarily lost
* her child after she asked a helpline if it was OK that she
* becomes sexually aroused while breast-feeding -- have been made
* by social workers who've never been there themselves.
[snip
* I will not, in a public forum like this, repeat any of the
* near-misses from my own parenting, or from my family history
* (though those moments are forever etched in memory), but I'll
* repeat a conversation overheard while I was at the pediatrician's
* office. A parent called that one child was pulling out her
* sibling's hair. The pediatrician (who was my wife's pediatrician --
* he's seen it all) said "Tell her in no uncertain terms that
* this is unacceptable behavior, but don't worry, it will
* grow back."
Speaking of training, experience, and IQ tests, why stop at social workers?
Why can't prospective parents be 'credentialled' before taking on the
responsibilities of a parent? I think infant and child CPR certification
would be a great start, as well as a basic first aid course. How about an
anger-management or conflict-resolution course?
Why not go further - allow only people who grew up in stable, nurturing
environments, who have passed requisite IQ, maturity, and empathy tests to
breed? That is, of course, after a five-year apprenticeship taking care of
children. Which is evaluated, 'natch.