Balanced Reporting - Child Abuse
As reported on MSNBC today - two Wichita, Kansas girls (6 and 7-years old) were found being starved in their home by their step-mother, as she appropriately fed her own biological children - during her husband's business absences. Wichita Family Service workers, tipped off to this circumstance, investigated and immediately contacted the police. All children were removed from the home and charges are pending against the mother.
(Story here)
Clearly, modern society requires vigilant workers dedicated to the protection of our children - and a justice system prepared to put teeth to the work these professionals do. There is certainly no grey area represented in this tragedy - no uncertain outcome to be concerned about. This woman maliciously harmed - physically, emotionally and spiritually - these two defenseless children - and the state agency took appropriate action. There is no legitimate debate about the right course of action.
I am absolutely not arguing against the need for state Child and/or Family Services Agencies - one only has to read about a case such as in Wichita to be convinced of the need for these agencies to exist and to function aggressively. The point, though, that I wanted to make in the Cherrix case (Ethical Intervention) is that when the outcome of intervention is unclear - and will remain unclear despite gathering additional data (as in cases involving medical treatment modalities) - then the state is on thin ice as they can no more predict the outcome of their intervention than the family can. It is in these cases in particular that the state should exercise some balance of their own.
The greater degree of personal freedom accorded to the individual demands a greater degree of personal responsibility from the individual. Personal accountability to society is crucial to maintain a high degree of personal freedom. The woman in Wichita abdicated her responsibility for the welfare of her children in the worst conceivable way. The Cherrix family - well...they're certainly going to exercise their right to disagree with the state - and I'm still intriqued by what it is precisely the state will do should the 16-year old refuse treatment...?
(Story here)
Clearly, modern society requires vigilant workers dedicated to the protection of our children - and a justice system prepared to put teeth to the work these professionals do. There is certainly no grey area represented in this tragedy - no uncertain outcome to be concerned about. This woman maliciously harmed - physically, emotionally and spiritually - these two defenseless children - and the state agency took appropriate action. There is no legitimate debate about the right course of action.
I am absolutely not arguing against the need for state Child and/or Family Services Agencies - one only has to read about a case such as in Wichita to be convinced of the need for these agencies to exist and to function aggressively. The point, though, that I wanted to make in the Cherrix case (Ethical Intervention) is that when the outcome of intervention is unclear - and will remain unclear despite gathering additional data (as in cases involving medical treatment modalities) - then the state is on thin ice as they can no more predict the outcome of their intervention than the family can. It is in these cases in particular that the state should exercise some balance of their own.
The greater degree of personal freedom accorded to the individual demands a greater degree of personal responsibility from the individual. Personal accountability to society is crucial to maintain a high degree of personal freedom. The woman in Wichita abdicated her responsibility for the welfare of her children in the worst conceivable way. The Cherrix family - well...they're certainly going to exercise their right to disagree with the state - and I'm still intriqued by what it is precisely the state will do should the 16-year old refuse treatment...?
posted by Scott Scofield | 9:29 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home