Quote:
Originally Posted by woob
See but you think it's black and white, which many do. I don't. Especially in a case where the society/government/whoever can't see any other signs of neglect. So we're going to go in, take this child away from their parents, put them through the treatment, and then once they're healed put them through the foster care system since we've deemed their parents "unfit"? Great, we saved them but in the process we destroyed a family and this kid could go through a life of bouncing between foster care, group homes or whatever. But by golly we saved the kid!
How else does the scenario play out? Because I think if we step in we are saying at that point these parents are unfit and so you lose your kid. Or we giving the kid back after?
Also, I think you're missing the point where I said I'm split on this as in certain scenarios I do see the other side.
|
That bolded part is BY FAR the most important part of this scenario. Your statement is pretty implicitly saying "Hey, things could be really bad for this kid if she lived, so maybe she's better off dead, we don't know that"
Would anyone ever ask that question if there were completely unfit parents who were not feeding the kid, or were abusive? Sometimes there are situations where we have to weigh the consequences of intervening vs the consequences of inaction. In this case we have the certainly of death, vs the possibility of an unhappy childhood, and unadjusted adulthood.
I'll take those odds 100% of the time.
In this case, perhaps the kid could be sent back to their parents, perhaps not. There's a chance these people are good parents who have been swindled to believe their child has a chance with the witch doctor, in that case, if there is no further danger to the child, then sure, the kid can go home. We have no way of knowing how this would have played out beause her parents decided, "meh, this treatment thing is hard on her (and probably them too), best to just let her die"