|
ActusRhesus posted:Your understanding of negligence/recklessness as it is applied in a criminal context is a little off here. Well sure. And just like the laws can create a definition of negligence that the courts can interpret without slipping us down the slippery slope to suing us for forgetting to brush the cat, so too can we make laws defining not vaccinating your kids in accordance with a doctor's recommendation as neglect without making everything into neglect.
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2015 18:37
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 26, 2024 00:26 |
|
|
pangstrom posted:My wife was kicked out of that group when she mentioned the CDC as something to trust your wife is a wise woman. I am also rather short on impulse control. And I have a warped sense of humor. This makes me unwelcome at many suburban "mom and tot" functions. Example: Music time. "And can everyone tell me what they do in the morning so we can sing about it?" "Rig the enemy base with explosives!" o_O I repeat the best litmus test is to have a glass of wine/beer in front of your kid. The parent who doesn't get all side-eye is probably cool. The one who asks for a glass is also probably cool. Oh, and if the kid's a poo poo, the parent's are probably shits too. That's my test, anyway. Also, I serve unorganic applesauce and my kid likes garlic dip and potato chips. All things in moderation.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2015 18:40
|
|
|
Two years ago there was a pretty large outbreak of measles in my country. Vaccines are freely available, and the NHS is one of the best health services in the world, so this isn't something that literally could not have been prevented - just dumb loving people putting people's lives at risk and that risk turning into someone actually dying. You would have thought this would have forced vaccinations into becoming mandatory, but it hasn't. Rush Limbo fucked around with this message at 18:49 on Jan 7, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2015 18:47
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Well sure. OK. How? I'm not saying I wouldn't want to see failing to vaccinate handled in a more draconian fashion, but how would you bring it under the criminal code? As I see it, first, our criminal code generally goes after people for specific actions, not omissions. An Omission case is a lot harder. Second, as a matter of public policy, we tend not to put criminal sanctions on parents for medical issues regarding their kids because we want patents to go to doctors, seek help, etc. etc. I have a baby. I need help for my baby. But if I take baby to hospital and they find out baby was not vaccinated, I will be arrested. Result: I stay home and baby dies. It's the same reason why we don't (in most states) go after pregnant drug users. We want to encourage people to come forward and get help/treatment even if it's late in the game. Also, you run into major mens rea issues re: recklessness, amplified by the fact that every state gives a "exemption" you run into major "gross negligence" issues because the risk of contracting these diseases is still remote (because of people who are not idiots and continue to vaccinate), therefore the "substantial" in "substantial risk" is missing, and you would also have causation issues, as you would have to prove, beyond a reasonable doubt in a criminal context, that the defendant's failure to vaccinate was the proximate cause of the illness. So if you are prosecuting for the death of a third party's kid, you would have to prove that the defendant's kid passed on the disease. If there was an outbreak, good luck with that. And also, there are cases (albeit rare) where even a vaccinated child contracts the disease, so again, your ability to prove failure to vaccinate was the cause of the disease, in the criminal context of proof beyond a reasonable doubt, is going to be extremely hard. Not to mention that even if you could prove your case, all you need is one anti-vax whackadoodle on your jury to get a big fat hung jury. Really the "your kid cannot enroll in school unless they are vaccinated" is probably the most effective government intervention. I just wish that the "exemptions" were not so easy to get.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2015 18:50
|
|
|
ActusRhesus posted:But bottom line, vaccinate your drat kids. I'm totally interested in the nitty gritty 1st amendment/negligence issues if folks don't otherwise mind. I can see where outside of having a program to provide free vaccinations requiring them becomes problematic, but wouldn't Medicaid and CHIP (nee SCHIP) take care of this issue? Not to be all, "aren't there still workhouses?!" mind you, affordable health care is still a serious issue for many. As far as any slippery slope issues, I think one can draw the line at the public health issues vaccinations protect against (versus say personal dental work, etc). Outside of collecting bacterial/viral samples of vaccine protected diseases from victims and tracing the lineage (I used to work in food safety where we did this to trace the source of nationwide food-borne contamination - E. coli/Listeria/Salmonella/etc) back to an unvaccinated victim and nailing the parents there, it does seem difficult to assign a specific cause. However, we know quite well that clusters of people who don't vaccinate their kids (usually clusters of private schools or home school co-op programs) lead directly to outbreaks and harm to immunocompromised communities, so what's the answer here? Have the government just come in and vaccinate children who don't have a medical reason to say no? Also, could/should these private schools/co-ops/communities of unvaccinated groups be held under similar models/frameworks/regulations that are already placed on other locations that are dangerous to those nearby, like laws against keeping wild animals as pets or localized pollution laws? Again, thanks for the insight, this is a side of the vaccination issue that hasn't really been discussed here before. EDIT: Just to add to the scope of unvaccinated communities, here's a report from the Hollywood Reporter showing private schools with high percentages of "Personal Belief Exemptions". High as in 80%+ high. At this point, is the school creating a substantial risk to the point that legal action should be taken by the government? Solkanar512 fucked around with this message at 19:11 on Jan 7, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2015 18:54
|
|
|
pangstrom posted:My wife was kicked out of that group when she mentioned the CDC as something to trust (haram), which was the first I knew of it so I don't know what generally went on in there, BUT if it was like other expectant/new Brooklyn parents I imagine it was a lot of the following hot topics Modern tribal mom is a great phrase which I will lovingly use in the future when these topics come up. But, uhm, do I really want to know what cord blood is supposed to be about? What purpose could they have for their cord blood? 
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2015 19:04
|
|
|
Slaan posted:Modern tribal mom is a great phrase which I will lovingly use in the future when these topics come up. Cord blood is actually a valid thing. At birth, the doctor harvests the stem cells from the umbilical cord and sends them to a company that freezes them for you. There's a lot of research being done on different diseases that can be cured with treatments involving cord blood cells. It's legit medicine and not "placenta eating earth mother crap." http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17474296 A lot of the research is still in initial trials, so it's kind of like an insurance policy at this time. Harvest the cells now and it's possible they will be useful later. ActusRhesus fucked around with this message at 19:19 on Jan 7, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2015 19:08
|
|
|
Spalec posted:
Why did measles incidences increase the following year, huh?! Clearly that's proof that the vaccine actually caused more people to get measles and then people just stopped getting measles for some other reason *feeds infant some botulism-containing raw milk*
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2015 19:16
|
|
|
Slaan posted:Modern tribal mom is a great phrase which I will lovingly use in the future when these topics come up.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2015 19:16
|
|
|
pangstrom posted:it's not like eating the placenta or something weird like that, I should have said "banking cord blood". It's a semi-scammy thing where you can take stem cells out of the umbilical cord and store them to potentially treat your kid's illness in the future. I am no expert but my summary is: if you have tons of money sure fine knock yourself out but if you don't then don't worry about it. (I call it semi-scammy because: it's mostly extremely speculative, and a lot of the illnesses they advertise as potential treatments are GENETIC disorders and uh how exactly are those bad-gene stem cells going to help with that? Like you do gene therapy on the cells first?) Gene therapy as a field of research is pretty much died out- there were several high-profile deaths, most famously a really terrible one at UPenn. More generally, the etiology isn't viewed as very promising anymore, since researchers now better realize that epigenetics is playing a massive role that isn't well understood.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2015 19:24
|
|
|
pangstrom posted:it's not like eating the placenta or something weird like that, I should have said "banking cord blood". It's a semi-scammy thing where you can take stem cells out of the umbilical cord and store them to potentially treat your kid's illness in the future. I am no expert but my summary is: if you have tons of money sure fine knock yourself out but if you don't then don't worry about it. (I call it semi-scammy because: it's mostly extremely speculative, and a lot of the illnesses they advertise as potential treatments are GENETIC disorders and uh how exactly are those bad-gene stem cells going to help with that? Like you do gene therapy on the cells first?) not all of them are though. TBI is on the list, and there's a lot of research being done on stem cell treatment for Parkinsons. We did it because a. We have a double history of Parkinsons b. Our OB was pretty candid on everything, including being blunt on the "if you already know you aren't going to abort, then what's the point? Sorry if that's too blunt." When we were struggling with whether or not to do genetic screening for downs given the very remote risk of injury to the fetus. and he said that having read the research on it, if it was available when his kids were born, he would have done it. It's not a make or break thing, but it is, like I said, sort of an extra insurance policy. (Also, fun fact, stem cells from the kid may also be usable for parental diseases.) Your kid will probably be fine without it, but I wouldn't call it a scam.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2015 19:24
|
|
|
ActusRhesus posted:OK. How? I'm not saying I wouldn't want to see failing to vaccinate handled in a more draconian fashion, but how would you bring it under the criminal code? As I see it, first, our criminal code generally goes after people for specific actions, not omissions. An Omission case is a lot harder. Second, as a matter of public policy, we tend not to put criminal sanctions on parents for medical issues regarding their kids because we want patents to go to doctors, seek help, etc. etc. I have a baby. I need help for my baby. But if I take baby to hospital and they find out baby was not vaccinated, I will be arrested. Result: I stay home and baby dies. Well, you write the law to discourage that. Not vaccinating your kid, minor penalty (kid gets taken away by child services maybe, or CPS checks hospital records, sees your kid isn't vaccinated, knocks on the door and tells you to do it). Keeping your kid with measles home until he dies, major penalty. Not feeding your kid for a couple days, minor penalty. Going "oh poo poo, don't let them take my kids" and locking him inside until he starves to death, major penalty. ActusRhesus posted:It's the same reason why we don't (in most states) go after pregnant drug users. We want to encourage people to come forward and get help/treatment even if it's late in the game. Also, you run into major mens rea issues re: recklessness, amplified by the fact that every state gives a "exemption" you run into major "gross negligence" issues because the risk of contracting these diseases is still remote (because of people who are not idiots and continue to vaccinate), therefore the "substantial" in "substantial risk" is missing, and you would also have causation issues, as you would have to prove, beyond a reasonable doubt in a criminal context, that the defendant's failure to vaccinate was the proximate cause of the illness. Make giving the vaccination a legal duty (like feeding and clothing your kid), then require parents do it or take the kids away if it's not done. We don't wait until a child starves to death before getting involved, why should we wait until after an unvaccinated kid dies of polio to get involved?
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2015 19:26
|
|
|
goes to the definition of "substantial risk" which is kind of important when you are talking about criminal negligence. We know, from centuries of studying mammals, that if you don't feed something it will die. Because vaccine prevented illnesses are rare (because again...most people are thankfully not stupid) the risk of contracting one is remote. Hence, not a substantial risk as the term is applied in criminal negligence.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2015 19:28
|
|
|
That's what statutes are for. No one claims kids will die if they don't go to school but somehow we managed to write statutes that require school attendance or the kids get taken away.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2015 19:30
|
|
|
ActusRhesus posted:not all of them are though. TBI is on the list, and there's a lot of research being done on stem cell treatment for Parkinsons. Discendo Vox posted:Gene therapy as a field of research is pretty much died out- there were several high-profile deaths, most famously a really terrible one at UPenn. More generally, the etiology isn't viewed as very promising anymore, since researchers now better realize that epigenetics is playing a massive role that isn't well understood.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2015 19:33
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:That's what statutes are for. Except they don't. See e.g. Wisconsin v. Yoder. Also, are you proposing a regulatory intervention or a criminal sanction?
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2015 19:33
|
|
|
ActusRhesus posted:Except they don't. See e.g. Wisconsin v. Yoder That case still seems to acknowledge the State's right to require education up to eighth grade, and the Amish still had to show that their kids got vocational training after that to be successful members of the Amish community. ActusRhesus posted:Also, are you proposing a regulatory intervention or a criminal sanction? Both? If you don't vaccinate your kids, the state considers it neglect and intervenes. If you purposefully evade that and hide your kids or whatever, you're breaking the law. If your child dies as a result, that's criminal.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2015 19:41
|
|
|
I think you need a stronger understanding of criminal negligence. As for Yoder, it's been largely expanded to now include not just religious exemptions but homeschooling etc. Your statement that "if you don't send your kid to school the government will take them away" was objectively false, as now parents not only have a legal right to send their kid to Amish Furniture Apprentice and Butter Churning classes, but also Homeschooling via the Divine School of Our Lady of the Immaculate Placenta Eater.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2015 19:49
|
|
|
Homeschooled children still have to be able to demonstrate competency in basic subjects though, you can't just keep them in the backyard and claim you homeschooled them.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2015 19:50
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Well, you write the law to discourage that. Not vaccinating your kid, minor penalty (kid gets taken away by child services maybe, or CPS checks hospital records, sees your kid isn't vaccinated, knocks on the door and tells you to do it). Keeping your kid with measles home until he dies, major penalty. The point that ActusRhesus was making is that if the kid's already sick, we don't want the parents to face the decision point of "take the kid in for treatment and certainly be punished, or hope the kid gets better by himself and not be punished at all." There are a lot of people who are going to choose the latter, even when the medical condition is dire, because they're afraid or selfish.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2015 19:50
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Homeschooled children still have to be able to demonstrate competency in basic subjects though, you can't just keep them in the backyard and claim you homeschooled them. and the standard for "basic competency" is so high these days... Anyway, the problem you will face is under the Religious Freedoms Restoration Act, states pretty much have to give "exemptions" for religious reasons, and any anti-vaxxer who's got half a brain, in the face of a more draconian law will say "My deeply held spiritual beliefs blah blah blah" Really, the only way the state will start to gain more ground on this is if there are enough outbreaks that these once eradicated diseases are now prevalent enough to be considered a "substantial risk." It's rather ironic...the proven success of vaccines and the now remote chance of encountering these diseases now gives one of the best legal arguments in defense of the anti-vaxxers.  unforeseen consequences.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2015 19:55
|
|
|
Farmer Crack-rear end posted:The point that ActusRhesus was making is that if the kid's already sick, we don't want the parents to face the decision point of "take the kid in for treatment and certainly be punished, or hope the kid gets better by himself and not be punished at all." There are a lot of people who are going to choose the latter, even when the medical condition is dire, because they're afraid or selfish. Right, so if you find out the kid isn't vaccinated, you require the parents to vaccinate him or take the kid away. If the parent tries to avoid this by keeping a sick kid at home until he dies, then that's criminal. We already do this. If a kid has rickets or something because he's not being fed properly, we require the parents to take care of the kid right or we take him. Nobody goes "oh well actually we should let that slide because what if the kid gets injured and has to go to the hospital but the parents are afraid to take him in because the doctor will certainly notice he has rickets too and notify CPS so they can deal with that". ActusRhesus posted:Anyway, the problem you will face is under the Religious Freedoms Restoration Act, states pretty much have to give "exemptions" for religious reasons, and any anti-vaxxer who's got half a brain, in the face of a more draconian law will say "My deeply held spiritual beliefs blah blah blah" No you don't, the RFRA only applies to laws that don't specifically say "and the RFRA doesn't apply to this law" somewhere in it. Also, the RFRA doesn't apply to state laws (see City of Boerne v. Flores) which are generally where educational and child welfare policy is done. VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 20:00 on Jan 7, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2015 19:57
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Right, so if you find out the kid isn't vaccinated, you require the parents to vaccinate him or take the kid away. If the parent tries to avoid this by keeping a sick kid at home until he dies, then that's criminal. Yes...because draconian laws that end in removal of children from their parents have such a great track record of encouraging indigents to seek public resources. Again, I don't agree with anti-vaxxers. My kid is vaccinated, and I have all my boosters up to date...but how do you not realize the numerous flaws with what you are proposing, both Constitutional and practical? Re: RFRA and Bourne, you are correct. However 19 states have their own identical equivalent subsequent to Bourne, including mine. Also, in a lot of your examples you are conflating liability for not getting treatment after a disease has already manifested with liability for omissions prior to contracting the illness. There's going to be a major difference in the proximate cause analysis there. ActusRhesus fucked around with this message at 20:09 on Jan 7, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2015 20:02
|
|
|
I'm all for dental checkups being mandatory. I've taken enough kids to five consecutive appointments for dental reconstruction.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2015 20:11
|
|
|
And when you remove these kids, where will you remove them to? Not to mention, again, if you are trying to prove a negligence case, thanks to quacks like Wakefield, anti-vaxxers will be able to talk at great lengths about all their diligent research. The fact it is bullshit junk science won't matter because "it looked all official and was from a doctor!" Hell, not long ago I was in a flamewar with a "doctor" who was preaching anti-vaxine bullshit. He, in fact, was a chiropractor, not an MD. But the fact the interwebs are flooded with quacks makes it very hard to build a negligence case, as the defendant will be able to cite to all the work they did to inform themselves, and that will have a negating effect on the mens rea. Really, if anyone needs to be prosecuted, it's "doctors" making false claims about the dangers of vaccines which in turn dupe well-meaning but gullible fools into making poor decisions which they sincerely believe are in the best interests of their children. As to the causation prong, all the defense will need to do to reach reasonable doubt is get one expert to testify that "Even a vaccinated child can get sick. Sometimes, rarely, the vaccine does not work. While having been vaccinated would have greatly reduced the risk of contraction, I cannot say to a degree of medical certainty that if this child had been vaccinated they would not have contracted the disease." Poof. There goes your causation theory. ActusRhesus fucked around with this message at 20:29 on Jan 7, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2015 20:15
|
|
|
ActusRhesus posted:And when you remove these kids, where will you remove them to? The same place you remove them to when parents refuse even to homeschool their kids: it only happens in a few necessary cases because nearly all parents when faced with that will say "ok fine I'll vaccinate/send them to school/make sure they can pass homeschooling exams." Your average suburban mom who watches a Jenny McCarthy video on YouTube and goes "well I'll skip vaccines just in case" is not the kind of zealot who will hole up David Koresh style when CPS comes by to say "hey you really need to vaccinate your kid, not kidding". ActusRhesus posted:Yes...because draconian laws that end in removal of children from their parents have such a great track record of encouraging indigents to seek public resources. If they're indigent, the answer is to vaccinate their kids for free, obviously. Actually all vaccines should be free as a simple public health measure.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2015 20:30
|
|
|
You're making a lot of assumptions there. Also, in practice, the way your system would play out is this: 1. Poor minority parent of unvaccinated kid = kid taken immediately. along with all other kids. 2. White Suburban parent = polite warning to vaccinate or we'll come back. We mean it! I don't want that system. however, I agree vaccines should be free. That agreement aside, what you are proposing is a pretty draconian solution without much understanding of how it would work in the context of our existing laws, or much thought on the practical consequences. It's basically the equivalent of writing the intro and conclusion paragraphs of a thesis paper, then powering down your laptop and smoking a bong. ActusRhesus fucked around with this message at 20:37 on Jan 7, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2015 20:34
|
|
|
Well okay, but how does the race issue you're raising not apply to everything that CPS does. That a white suburban meth addict may be more likely to retain custody than a poor black one is not an argument against CPS. Besides, why take their kids right away? You could show up and say "okay your kids need to be vaccinated, when is a good time for us to pick them up". Don't give them the option to say no.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2015 20:36
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Well okay, but how does the race issue you're raising not apply to everything that CPS does. uhm...actually it is. (and for the record, the meth addict would probably lose her kids too...but not the Percocet pill popper.)
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2015 20:38
|
|
|
ActusRhesus posted:uhm...actually it is. So instead of implementing proper policy to fix the race and class issues while also trying to help children get immunized, you just leave the system alone completely?
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2015 20:42
|
|
|
Did I say that? No. That's not what I said. I would not, however, advocate for expanding the "jurisdiction" of an agency with some real systemic issues prior to resolving those issues. It's that pesky problem I have with existing in reality, not utopian unicorns making GBS threads skittles land. Hey guys, we have this agency that we all know is hosed up...let's dump more kids into it. We can fix the problems eventually, right?
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2015 20:44
|
|
|
ActusRhesus posted:You're making a lot of assumptions there. I mentioned it in my last response, but wouldn't Medicaid and CHIP take care of the issue of vaccination cost for poor children? Or are those programs lacking even in that basic area?
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2015 20:46
|
|
|
ActusRhesus posted:Did I say that? No. That's not what I said. Creating a law that requires vaccinations for children who don't have a real reason for not getting them is a good thing. Pretending anyone who believes that is living in 'utopian unicorns making GBS threads skittles land' is a little weird. ActusRhesus posted:Hey guys, we have this agency that we all know is hosed up...let's dump more kids into it. We can fix the problems eventually, right? It's almost like two things can be done... simultaneously! I know there are issues(I'm a social working major and am interning at a DHR now), but they can be fixed and shouldn't preempt anything else being done for needy children.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2015 20:46
|
|
|
GreyPowerVan posted:Creating a law that requires vaccinations for children who don't have a real reason for not getting them is a good thing. Pretending anyone who believes that is living in 'utopian unicorns making GBS threads skittles land' is a little weird. straw man. I agree that vaccinations should be required. In fact they are. Where I have disagreed is 1. over how much you can clamp down on "exemptions" given existing legal precedent re: parental decisions, religious freedom, etc. 2. Whether under existing definitions of negligence, recklessness etc. you could successfully prosecute failure to vaccinate. GreyPowerVan posted:I know there are issues(I'm a social working major and am interning at a DHR now), but they can be fixed and shouldn't preempt anything else being done for needy children. OK, social working major...a child is in a stable home. Appears well-loved by her parents. Is fed and clothed appropriately, plays sports, takes music lessons, is very bonded with her parents and siblings, but was not vaccinated against the measles because mom's "health care provider" said it's not necessary and mom is concerned (irrationally) about vaccine ingredients. Is that child better off staying with parents who have made what I consider to be a poor choice or removed and placed in foster care? I don't like anti-vaxxer views. I think they are nuts. But do you see why "they should have their kids taken away" is not really a great solution? ActusRhesus fucked around with this message at 20:54 on Jan 7, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2015 20:50
|
|
|
ActusRhesus posted:straw man. I agree that vaccinations should be required. In fact they are. Where I have disagreed is So do you believe it should be a serious offense worthy of taking their kids away, or no?
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2015 20:51
|
|
|
GreyPowerVan posted:So do you believe it should be a serious offense worthy of taking their kids away, or no? if the goal of CPS is to result in the least harm to the child, then no, I do not think it is in the best interests of a child to remove them from an otherwise stable and loving home because their parents do something I think is stupid and carries a slight risk of harm (again, yay vaccines! the risk of contracting a disease is still low even for an unvaccinated child. Irony. I know.) I think CPS would be better off focusing its resources on children who are in immediate danger. Again, I do not like or agree with anti-vaxxers, but they are making their incorrect and misguided decisions based on what they believe to be in the best interests of their child. I'd rather we spend out limited CPS resources on kids whose parents don't give a poo poo about them, and spend more resources making vaccines more widely available and aggressively prosecuting/removing medical licenses from quacks who falsify data and spread anti-vax paranoia. The fact you are a social working major and your default is "take their kids away" is, frankly, terrifying.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2015 20:59
|
|
|
ActusRhesus posted:The fact you are a social working major and your default is "take their kids away" is, frankly, terrifying. If we had more resources it wouldn't be an issue. As it is, you can see CPS making triage-like decisions constantly, because funding their agency doesn't give American voters a pleasurable tingle in the same way funding cops and prisons does. If we funded CPS adequately, it would be objectively correct to remove all children from parents who didn't vaccinate or let their kids' teeth rot.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2015 21:05
|
|
|
ActusRhesus posted:OK, social working major...a child is in a stable home. Appears well-loved by her parents. Is fed and clothed appropriately, plays sports, takes music lessons, is very bonded with her parents and siblings, but was not vaccinated against the measles because mom's "health care provider" said it's not necessary Unless by "health care provider" you mean "quack" in which case, yeah, we should probably not give a poo poo what quacks say, just like we don't give a poo poo if mom finds some palm-reader or televangelist who says penicillin is ZOG lies. And we go "no, take your kid to the doctor or else" ActusRhesus posted:OK, social working major...a child is in a stable home. Appears well-loved by her parents. Is fed and clothed appropriately, plays sports, takes music lessons, is very bonded with her parents and siblings, but was not taught to read because mom's pastor said it's not necessary for girls to read and mom is concerned (irrationally) about the devil's hold over the libraries. Is that child better off staying with parents who have made what I consider to be a poor choice or removed and placed in foster care?
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2015 21:07
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:Only rich people should be allowed to raise their children.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2015 21:10
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 26, 2024 00:26 |
|
|
VitalSigns posted:If a doctor has said the kid shouldn't be vaccinated (because of a poor immune system, or whatever) then that's fine, obviously. Plenty of people have medical conditions that make vaccination a bad idea. the air quotes implied "quack" and you still didn't answer my question.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2015 21:11
|
|