http://www.clickorlando.com/health/21289128/detail.html



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.

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.

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".

And you have a little anarchist sign in your sig?

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.

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.

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.

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 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

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

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.

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.

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

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

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.

*grumbles*


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

/me divides by 0

I guess they should intervene... though if this kid was an adult I would say let the !@#$%^& kill himself.

Really though... what can the state do? If he refuses to take any medication then what can you do? Lock him in a room with no food until he agrees to take his medicine? I mean it seems a bit harsh really, I almost have the urge to say that we should just let the kid kill himself if that's really what he wants to do... but since he is so young I can see a reason to intervene and try to turn his life around, if he resists against it strongly then after awhile I would say we should just give it up though, there's only so much you can really do...

I'm guessing the person who voted no (1 out of 20 votes, so far) did it just to be different.

This just in: the Earth has exploded.

On a more serious note, I'm actually surprised by how many have lined up side-by-side in this case. I figured there'd be at least a few who would claim it's statist for Florida to come in and remove this kid from a home that's (literally) contributing to his early death.

For those wondering what more the state can do, what do you think they do for mental patients who refuse their medication? You hold them down and stuff it down their throat / jam a needle in their arm. As a child, he does not have the same legal rights and responsibilities as do adults. He cannot be sent off to war, he cannot drink alcohol, he cannot vote, and he cannot refuse life-saving medical treatment. I do agree with others about adults. If an adult wants to eat their way to a very early death, let them. When this kid hits 18, let him have his cake and eat it too. Let him refuse all the medication in the world. Let him kill himself.

But for now, he's not an adult making a bad decision; he's a child committing suicide. You don't allow children to kill themselves; that's barbaric.

A child has a right to decent, responsible care. The issues of a child's ability to give informed consent, and the role that responsible adults play in guiding and disciplining a child, are open to debate. Even if we can't agree on where the line is, I think we all agree that a line is somewhere.

I can't help but be reminded of a video from The Onion: Study: Most Children Strongly Opposed to Children's Healthcare

-Craig

Who are you and what have you done with Western Skier?

I tied him up and threw him in his closet....



Just teasing...

*note

I don't like the government bursting in and telling everybody what to do, but how much this kid weighs is just irresponsible.

I'm only ok with it because it's a parent being irresponsible with their child.

any form of government more authoritarian than absolute stateless anarchy is "the government bursting in and telling everybody what to do". Murder being illegal is "the government bursting in and telling everybody what to do".

i thought we were getting somewhere....


Obviously you dont get what im saying; the government bursts in and tells you to drop that plate of pizza bagels is "government bursting in and telling everybody what to do".

so why is the government bursting in and telling you not to chop that prostitute's head off not "government bursting in and telling everybody what to do"?

my point is that almost everyone, regardless of political affiliation, supports some level of enforced societal rules.

I never said i didn't believe in a Government, every person who does something wrong should get discipline. I am talking about a radical government telling you what kind of car to drive, what to eat, how much exercise to get, etc..


but in this case, it is child abuse in my book.

Murder being illegal is the government protecting your right to life.

"Really though... what can the state do?"

Just getting him out of the household where all the food that mom buys is the kind that promotes obesity (like hers) would be a good start. How would this kid have learned good eating habits?

Points for linking to an Onion video, but all you are really saying is that before a child reaches the elusive age of consent, they are property of society and not their parents. But either way, they're property.

yes, but the point I was making is that you can't simply state your opinion as that you don't like "government bursting in and telling everybody what to do", as so very many things fall under this category.

You need a little more nuance in your descriptions.

I myself am entirely in favor of the government telling people what to do, up to a certain point. I strongly suspect you are too. The difference is where that point is, and it can only in rare cases be described by a simple and flat principle.

Well, yes and no. The government should "burst in" when there are drug dealings, murderers, or any other type of legit criminal activity. Driving a SUV and eating whatever you want is not a criminal offense. Although if your kid is 400lbs, that is abusive. In certain cases like that the government should interfere and make the parent to start making the kid exercise and eat healthier. But for all the other kids shouldn't suffer with a mistake made by a single family, that the government bans all "unhealthy" food.

I'm not seeing the "and no" part here. You just said that you were entirely in favor of the government telling people what to do up to a certain point.

As I said, the different is where that point is.

i think you believe in a bigger government role in daily life than me.

That's what Lam is saying. You both believe government has a role to play in daily life. You disagree in how much of a role that is.

correct

Do you believe toddlers should be legally allowed to drink Vodka, own/possess/carry/use guns, smoke cigarettes, drive trucks, vote, and join the military for foreign battlefield deployment?

Or do you believe that children are the responsibility of their caretakers (typically their parents) and are thus required to live by the reasonable rules and restrictions of those providing for them? If we want our children to be able to be children, we must take responsibility for their care upon ourselves until they reach a certain objectively ascertainable point. Doing that requires a certain amount of freedom be denied to them until they're old enough to deal with it responsibly. The alternative is to simply allow children to run wild, raise and fend for themselves, and watch the wholesale annihilation of society in a mere couple of generations as lawless, educationless youths become increasingly desperate to maintain their survival while lacking the tools or maturity to do so within the laws of society.

Obviously child abuse, DSS should have been involved long ago.

In the first place, I'd like to know what the medicine is and why he refuses to take it. Frankly, if this a matter of "I don't want to take pills three times a day," then there's no excuse. Mix the meds in with meals and be done with it. Or require the meds to be taken before food is served.

Now, if it's more serious and the meds are actually producing side effects, that's something else. Take him back to the doctors and tell them.

The only way I can really imagine someone be able to overeat is if there exists oversized portions of food available for consumption. The solution seems pretty obvious- make sure oversized portions of food are not available.

Per the article, they have been. Only recently has the mother stopped taking this child to the docters and stated that she's unable to stop him from self-destructing. Now that she's plainly stated that she's incapable of preventing her child's slow suicide, they're considering removing the child from the home so his life can be saved.

And she's saying that's wrong; that the state of Florida should not interfere in her child's suicide.

-----------



Judging by the article's picture of the mother, I'm not confident she has a solid understanding of what a correct meal portion actually is. The most disconcerting part for me is the fact that she's got doctors telling her that her child's life is is immediate danger and she's simply shrugging and saying there's nothing she can do. The kid isn't dying of Cancer; he's dying of overeating, underexercising, and not taking his meds. At 13, if it had been me who was refusing meds and such, my arse would have been whooped until I couldn't sit for a week, then I'd still have to take the meds. This is a parent who has no control over their child, doesn't care, and doesn't appear to care that their child's actions will soon result in his death. Any decent loving mother who recognized and admitted that she couldn't prevent her child from ending their own life would gladly welcome anyone stepping in who could.

This woman does not care whether her child lives or dies.

Don't be silly; I don't believe in foreign battlefield deployments at all, with or without toddlers!

But you misunderstand me. I am not arguing that a three year old has the same ability to consent that (say) a twenty year old does. All I am saying is that Comrade Craig's support for this instance is poorly reasoned. He says that it is wrong for parents to treat their children like property. I point out that his arguments in this thread support society treating children like property. Either way, according to his arguments, the child is treated like property.

giving government too much power is dangerous, such us making moral judgments that only a family should make.

I believe Craig's statement was actually a commentary on the positive nature of community responsibility and involvement in the care and protection of children, including the notion that it being accomplished through a local communal effort or by "the state" is, on the whole, irrelevant as long as it is accomplished.

But I could be wrong.

So we should let the kid die, and then punish the parents for it? Wouldn't that essentially be letting kids kill themselves/let their parents help them in a sense, in this case?