Is parental quackery child abuse

[zorax]

Won't attempting to deter parents from quacks by law just push them further into the arms of said quacks?

"The government doesn't want you to get alternative medicine, they will throw you IN JAIL if you don't do their vaccines! They want all of us to be domesticated, drugged up, autistic sheep! They're trying to control us, we cannot let them do that to our kids!"

Surely the best deterrence is to just make news like this as public as possible.

 

[Spark]

Won't attempting to deter parents from quacks by law just push them further into the arms of said quacks?

"The government doesn't want you to get alternative medicine, they will throw you IN JAIL if you don't do their vaccines! They want all of us to be domesticated, drugged up, autistic sheep! They're trying to control us, we cannot let them do that to our kids!"

Surely the best deterrence is to just make news like this as public as possible.

The case study of anti-vaxxers would seem to suggest otherwise tbh. Publicising it seems to have just created more anti-vaxxers for perverse reasons, whilst going "hey, get your kids vaccinated or else you'll be ineligible for all sorts of ****/will be barred from childcare" has seemed to be very, very effective, at least here.

 

[harsh.ag]

Yeah, "get your child vaccinated or you lose benefits" is good policy.

 

[Daemon]

I am with harsh on this. Unless there is gross negligence or real intent to harm, I think the parents are already suffering something far more deep than being put in prison. As if the threat of prison is going to rehabilitate the parents or as if there is an epidemic of parents out there who are trying to harm their kids that need deterrence.

This sad event itself is going to be the ultimate deterrent in both these parents and others taking risk in the future anyway.

Yeah, prison time certainly serves very little purpose in cases like this imo. It's not going to be an effective deterrent, won't rehabilitate, doesn't help society, punishes the family of the parent (what if the one going to jail is the sole breadwinner) etc etc. It's just retribution for the sake of it.

I'm probably just about inclined to agree with this on the whole, but I find it difficult to think of many examples where a child might die due to a parent's failure to act/provide care and it not being grossly negligent.

They could be uneducated/poorly educated which may lead to cases like the OP. Happens a lot in Asia.

 

[sledger]

I don't think ignorance of the law should be a defence tbh.

Ignorance of how to care for a child could perhaps serve as mitigation for wrongdoing, but not exoneration.

 

[hendrix]

The case study of anti-vaxxers would seem to suggest otherwise tbh. Publicising it seems to have just created more anti-vaxxers for perverse reasons, whilst going "hey, get your kids vaccinated or else you'll be ineligible for all sorts of ****/will be barred from childcare" has seemed to be very, very effective, at least here.

Vaccination isn't really a medical issue though. There's pretty much no legitimate concern with vaccination, and millions of benefits to the individual and society.

With other conditions for which medicine is indication (i.e. a medical issue), there are almost by definition side effects and downsides to conventional medical treatment. I think there's very little argument when it comes to the medical intervention of treating an acute incident e.g. severe asthma or a pneumothorax etc etc.

There is a legitimate argument when it comes to conventional preventional or long term treatment of chronic conditions - which let's be honest is most of the medical field today.

I know it sucks that the quacks seem to be the most vocal critics, but there is truth in some of what they say.

This in BMJ is part of their Christmas issue so it's kinda light-hearted, but kinda serious too (the science is 100% robust)

 

[Spark]

is giving your child a patently absurd name like "abcde" child abuse

 

[vcs]

In a world where the qwerty keyboard is a thing, definitely

 

[Victor Ian]

Or how about weird spelling? Driving in I heard someone on the radio say how he loved his parent, thought they were ****heads for spelling his name mykal.

Child abuse is a bit harsh. The parents are not responsible for other people being dickheads. What about the parent who calls their child Anil?. A very fine name, everywhere but here. What about Vangipurappu Venkata Sai and other long names that end up being abbreviated? The abuse doesn't come from the parents. Saying it does condones people making fun of people's names.

 

[Spark]

i think weird spelling is a bit different to naming your child something nonsensical

 

[silentstriker]

T
Is using alternative forms of medicine a criminal act? Does that mean not administering a certain medicine should be a crime? That would seem to implicate mandatory medication which is rife with conflict

In the US, for example, if you have a treatable form of cancer and parents refuse chemotherapy, the state will take over and mandate the treatment. This has happened multiple times. Appropriately so. Certain cancers are essentially 100% fatal without treatment, and survival rates are approaching 90% with treatment. It's clear case (IMO) of the state looking out for the minor's health, the same way as if the state would intervene if the child was being physically abused or not being given any food or water. If you're an adult - do whatever you want but children are not their parents property - they are guardians, not owners.

In other examples, even if the parents are Jehova's Witnesses and refuse all blood product, but the child will die without a blood transfusion - the physicians are ethically obligated (and perhaps legally so) to treat the baby or the child regardless of parental beliefs.

 

[silentstriker]

you get a corporation produced inhaler supplied by a doctor

Where in a modern industrialized country that a doctor gets paid by the inhaler prescribed?

 

[Victor Ian]

i think weird spelling is a bit different to naming your child something nonsensical

A number of people say your name defines you. In that case, you have a point. I'm wary of calling it abuse though your example is a label that has made you more difficult to refer to than is fair.

On the other hand. According to naming rules in Victoria, that particular name falls very close to being banned, so maybe you are right.

https://www.bdm.vic.gov.au/births/naming-your-child/naming-restrictions

 

[Spark]

tbf my post was a little facetious and more a play on the thread title. but it's a bad thing to do to a kid.

 

[harsh.ag]

My only thought on naming is that parents should consider only those names which travel well across a large portion of the globe.

To point out the obvious, Harsh is not one of those names

 

[Victor Ian]

I didn't even realise that is a real name. I think it's awesome. You'd be an awesome manager. My boss is Harsh!

You'd limit names too much if they had to work in all languages. I was told my name means fart in some arabic dialects.

 

[Athlai]

Harsh is a great name in English.

I’m looking forward to when the first cwer names one of their kids WAC.

 

[Spark]

a four star kid

 

[GIMH]

A number of people say your name defines you. In that case, you have a point. I'm wary of calling it abuse though your example is a label that has made you more difficult to refer to than is fair.

On the other hand. According to naming rules in Victoria, that particular name falls very close to being banned, so maybe you are right.

https://www.bdm.vic.gov.au/births/naming-your-child/naming-restrictions

Just clicked that link and can’t believe what I’ve just read

 

[Victor Ian]

is giving your child a patently absurd name like "abcde" child abuse

Far out. Just heard on the radio this is a real thing. Thought you were just musing.