[Loki Ire]

http://www.clickorla...128/detail.html

Quote

Doctors contacted the Department of Children and Families after Josiah Lewis missed a few appointments, saying his condition is life-threatening.

The boy's mother, Brenda Lewis, said she's trying to help her son lose weight, but he refuses to take medicine and will not stop overeating.

"At 13, how can I make him? What do you want me to do?" Brenda Lewis said. "Because of his weight he has gained diabetes and has high blood pressure."

Doctors are indicating that the child's life is in danger. The kid's mother openly admits she's incapable of making him take life-saving medicine and action. At this point, I think there's little choice but for the state to act. It pains me to say that as a very strong advocate of individual rights and limited state, but when a child's life is in immediate danger and their parent(s) openly admits an inability to do anything about it, someone must step in to preserve the life of the child. If this kid were playing with loaded guns and his mother said she couldn't do anything about it, we'd be in the same spot.

She claims to think it's not right for DCF to come take the kid away, but the medical evidence seems to indicate that if they don't, it'll be the coroner coming to take the kid away. Either way, the state will probably be removing this kid from her custody. The only question is whether to let him die first.

------

By the way, if you click on the images link in the story, you see that she's bigger than he is. Her unhealthy lifestyle and refusal to change it has led to this point. Nobody wakes up suddenly at 400lbs. This is the result of many, many years of chronic mismanagement of this child's diet, exercise, and healthcare. I also love the gem from the article: "He didn't come with a manuscript or a guide. I (have) just been working my way through". You've been working your way through, alright. Right through to your child's very early death.

This post has been edited by Loki Ire: 14 October 2009 - 12:32 PM

[Kenadian_2006]

I don't think there is any question, in the case you mention. If the child is in immediate and clear danger, there is no room for discussion.

[Thorgrum]

Kenadian_2006, on Oct 14 2009, 06:27 PM, said:

I don't think there is any question, in the case you mention. If the child is in immediate and clear danger, there is no room for discussion.

Im not a fan of state interventions into peoples personal lives or liberties but given the specific scenario listed I agree with Kenadian in this case. The mother admits she cant make him take life saving medications, thats the kicker for me. If this was an adult, my feelings would be very different, but yeah Kenadian has this one spot on.

[Comrade Craig]

It is interesting that the you chose to phrase the question in such a provocative way. "The State" is not a monolithic entity. The idea that somehow the government is an entity which exists separate from the population (like an alien) and pursues a singular agenda is false. Externalizing action to "the state" is a psychological attempt to shift responsibility. The real issue is whether or not society has an interest in protecting children from abusive guardians. I believe that it does. Whether society chooses to exert its will through a "state" or through other means is almost irrelevant.

-Craig

[Loki Ire]

Comrade Craig, on Oct 14 2009, 02:41 PM, said:

It is interesting that the you chose to phrase the question in such a provocative way. "The State" is not a monolithic entity. The idea that somehow the government is an entity which exists separate from the population (like an alien) and pursues a singular agenda is false. Externalizing action to "the state" is a psychological attempt to shift responsibility. The real issue is whether or not society has an interest in protecting children from abusive guardians. I believe that it does. Whether society chooses to exert its will through a "state" or through other means is almost irrelevant.

-Craig

"The state" is the formalized, codified, more civil version of the angry mob. It's the alternative to groups of people running around with pitchforks and torches. And all that is irrelevant to the fact that the state I was referring to is the state of Florida, of which the Department of Children and Families is a part.

DCF officials will decide whether DCF staff and police should remove the child from the home; not "society".

[Arcturus Jefferson]

Comrade Craig, on Oct 14 2009, 02:41 PM, said:

It is interesting that the you chose to phrase the question in such a provocative way. "The State" is not a monolithic entity. The idea that somehow the government is an entity which exists separate from the population (like an alien) and pursues a singular agenda is false. Externalizing action to "the state" is a psychological attempt to shift responsibility. The real issue is whether or not society has an interest in protecting children from abusive guardians. I believe that it does. Whether society chooses to exert its will through a "state" or through other means is almost irrelevant.

-Craig

And you have a little anarchist sign in your sig?

[Lamuella]

to my eyes this is as clear a case of negligence as I have ever witnessed. A big problem that any form of social services run into is that if they act too soon, they get accused of nanny statism and breaking up families, and if they act too late, they get accused of neglecting their duties. In this case, I have no choice but to see that this boy's life was in danger because of how he was being raised.

[Arcturus Jefferson]

Quote

but he refuses to take medicine and will not stop overeating.

What's the state's solution here?

[Loki Ire]

Arcturus Jefferson, on Oct 14 2009, 02:56 PM, said:

What's the state's solution here?

I don't know, strap his $@! to a gurney and force-feed him the pills/inject the medicine?

He's 13, not 25. He's a child who's been so neglected for so long that he's going to need some pretty extreme measures to nurse him back to health. That'll mean a strictly regulated diet, strict exercise routine, and providing him medication whether he likes it or not.

[edikroma]

Is this a continuation of a case previously discussed maybe a couple months ago? Or is this an entirely new case?

Anyway, if the mother is really being honest that she's trying to get her son help (taking him to a doctor is one sign, I guess), then I don't agree that she is being negligent. She, like many parents, may not have the concept of strong discipline or the understanding that even if your child is 13, you're still older than him.

Before taking her son away from her because she's unfit to take care of him, I think the state should offer her help in getting her son to lose the weight. If she's not complying with these orders (not her son...her), then take her child away.

[Loki Ire]

edikroma, on Oct 14 2009, 03:02 PM, said:

Is this a continuation of a case previously discussed maybe a couple months ago? Or is this an entirely new case?

Anyway, if the mother is really being honest that she's trying to get her son help (taking him to a doctor is one sign, I guess), then I don't agree that she is being negligent. She, like many parents, may not have the concept of strong discipline or the understanding that even if your child is 13, you're still older than him.

Before taking her son away from her because she's unfit to take care of him, I think the state should offer her help in getting her son to lose the weight. If she's not complying with these orders (not her son...her), then take her child away.

Per the article, DCF has already attempted to provide help and she stopped taking the child to the doctor. Further, even though the doctors dealing with him have provided medication to help, he's refusing to take it and she's throwing her hands in the air claiming she can't make him.

She's given up on saving this child's life.

[edikroma]

Loki Ire, on Oct 14 2009, 02:04 PM, said:

Per the article, DCF has already attempted to provide help and she stopped taking the child to the doctor. Further, even though the doctors dealing with him have provided medication to help, he's refusing to take it and she's throwing her hands in the air claiming she can't make him.

She's given up on saving this child's life.

Well, then that's her choice. Who are we to force her to save the ingrate? I mean, maybe as he's dying, the kid'll realize what an !@#$%^& he was to his poor mother, and if only he'd listened to her earlier...

[Comrade Craig]

Arcturus Jefferson, on Oct 14 2009, 11:53 AM, said:

And you have a little anarchist sign in your sig?

I shall risk derailing the conversation in order to respond

Political anarchism is, at its core, founded on order. As an anarchist, I can recognize that the "state" is not a monolithic entity. It is a complex grouping of disparate, competing organizations. Certain actions performed under the label of "the state" are simply communal functions that are necessary for all decent, civilized societies. The "state" which maintains my roads, water systems, and organizes the collection of garbage is not the same "state" which pursues empire through mass murder in foreign lands. Forgive me for using (abusing) an old cliche, but I would be a fool to throw the baby out with the bathwater.

I can guarantee you that in a true anarchist society, children would not be chattel; they would not be the property of their parents, to be used and disposed of as the master sees fit. Children are equal members of society, and are equally deserving of the protections that society can provide. Most discussions of so-called "parental rights" are based on the antiquated notion that children are property. As a libertarian, an egalitarian, a socialist, and an anarchist, I reject that idea outright.

Whew, I was afraid I couldn't link my response back into the current topic

-Craig

This post has been edited by Comrade Craig: 14 October 2009 - 01:11 PM

[Loki Ire]

edikroma, on Oct 14 2009, 03:14 PM, said:

Well, then that's her choice. Who are we to force her to save the ingrate? I mean, maybe as he's dying, the kid'll realize what an !@#$%^& he was to his poor mother, and if only he'd listened to her earlier...

So you would argue that it's best for the state to stand by and allow the child to die?

[Flatlander]

edikroma, on Oct 14 2009, 12:14 PM, said:

Well, then that's her choice. Who are we to force her to save the ingrate? I mean, maybe as he's dying, the kid'll realize what an !@#$%^& he was to his poor mother, and if only he'd listened to her earlier...

I love your optimism, but in fact what would happen is we'd all be on the hook for hundreds of thousands of dollars in hospital care for a completely preventable condition.

[Arcturus Jefferson]

Comrade Craig, on Oct 14 2009, 03:14 PM, said:

I shall risk derailing the conversation in order to respond

Political anarchism is, at its core, founded on order. As an anarchist, I can recognize that the "state" is not a monolithic entity. It is a complex grouping of disparate, competing organizations. Certain actions performed under the label of "the state" are simply communal functions that are necessary for all decent, civilized societies. The "state" which maintains my roads, water systems, and organizes the collection of garbage is not the same "state" which pursues empire through mass murder in foreign lands. Forgive me for using (abusing) an old cliche, but I would be a fool to throw the baby out with the bathwater.

I can guarantee you that in a true anarchist society, children would not be chattel; they would not be the property of their parents, to be used and disposed of as the master sees fit. Children are equal members of society, and are equally deserving of the protections that society can provide. Most discussions of so-called "parental rights" are based on the antiquated notion that children are property. As a libertarian, an egalitarian, a socialist, and an anarchist, I reject that idea outright.

Whew, I was afraid I couldn't link my response back into the current topic

-Craig

Actually, it's pretty revealing. In your society, "equal members of society" are going to be compelled to be healthy and take medicine whether they want to or not.

[Sargun]

Put the kid in a medically induced coma and starve his $@! to skinny.

[Arcturus Jefferson]

Flatlander, on Oct 14 2009, 03:17 PM, said:

I love your optimism, but in fact what would happen is we'd all be on the hook for hundreds of thousands of dollars in hospital care for a completely preventable condition.

Not if he dies early due to that. Healthy people who live really long are more expensive than fat smokers.

[Zarfef]

The state should step in to act against the fast food industry, because that's the hard road against the lobbiests they don't want to take, it's easier to remove kids from their parents then to fight the fast food industry.

[western skier]

Lamuella, on Oct 14 2009, 02:54 PM, said:

to my eyes this is as clear a case of negligence as I have ever witnessed. A big problem that any form of social services run into is that if they act too soon, they get accused of nanny statism and breaking up families, and if they act too late, they get accused of neglecting their duties. In this case, I have no choice but to see that this boy's life was in danger because of how he was being raised.

*grumbles*


I have to agree with you Lamuella, I think this is child abuse.