Family values for the 21st century
Jan. 12th, 2015 03:25 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
blogcutterWith the advent of 2015, I'm sure a few new measures and price changes kicked in automatically, though I don't know at this point what they all are.
Federally, of course, this is an election year, which means the Tory regime is scattering a few little goodies and promoting its economic action plan with our tax dollars.
They've come under a lot of criticism for finally allowing income splitting for parents of young children, the argument being that only a few, already fairly well-off couples will actually benefit from it. Personally, I'm in favour of it - I just think it should be extended to ANY family who might wish to take advantage of it. After all, the family is still the most fundamental unit of society - and I hasten to add that I define "family" in the broadest sense of the word - as S. Bear Bergman so eloquently put it, folks connected by "blood, marriage, wine or glitter".
For similar reasons, I think the rationale for giving money to parents to choose their own child care arrangements (as opposed to only subsidizing licenced child care centres) is a sound one - as long as it's not misrepresented as a comprehensive solution to the myriad child care challenges that young families typically face.
Speaking of various types of families, I definitely thought it was a hopeful sign when two girls in grade six at a Catholic school were (after a bit of a battle) allowed to do a human rights project on gay rights, with an emphasis on bullying in the schools. This, added to the formation of gay-straight alliances in many schools under both the public and Catholic boards, at least represents some progress.
One of the pronouncements that caused me some dismay in 2014 came, surprisingly enough, from someone for whom I actually have the greatest of respect - Alex Munter. He would have made a wonderful mayor - better than our current one and certainly many times better than our mayor's immediate predecessor, who actually managed to defeat Munter. But I have some serious reservations about his plan to somehow integrate Children's Aid workers with CHEO people in an effort, I guess, to be more holistic with their care. I don't know what that means in practical terms, but the announcement raised some red flags for me.
First of all, won't it make parents think twice about taking their kids to Emergency even when that might be the best course of action? It's stressful enough to have your child suddenly become seriously ill or get involved in an accident, without having the additional
worry that you'll be erroneously suspected of physical or sexual abuse, Munchausen's syndrome by proxy, or any number of other syndromes that you may or may not have heard of! If the parents take the kid in anyway, there's a very real risk that they won't get the kid out again - meaning considerable stress for child and parent alike. Alternatively, parents might either delay getting treatment or try to treat the problem themselves, possibly resulting in more harm than good.
Admittedly, I have a rather jaundiced view of Children's Aid, something that Alex Munter probably doesn't . And who knows? Maybe he can actually foster a more constructive understanding amongst the various parties who in most cases, genuinely believe they are acting in the best interests of the child. But I'm not very optimistic.
So often, it seems that the child welfare authorities over-intervene when intervention is not even warranted (thereby creating needless anguish for the whole family), and fail to intervene when it is. Like the ten (eleven?)-year old First Nations girl with leukaemia, whose parents will not consent to chemotherapy, even though it would give the girl a 90% chance of survival. Instead, they have sent her to a clinic in Florida for "traditional" aboriginal therapy which seems to be neither particularly traditional nor particularly aboriginal.
Certainly the situation calls for considerable sensitivity. The ideal result would be that the family would sit down with the doctors and social workers and agree that with a good track record behind it, chemotherapy would be worth a try. Perhaps certain traditional healing methods could be used in conjunction with, rather than instead of, the conventional medical treatments.
But if that's not possible and appointing an interim guardian becomes necessary in order to save the girl's life, then at least it should be someone already known to, and trusted by the girl, likely a fairly close relative.
At her age, she should also have some say in how things will unfold. Still, if she rebels against getting a treatment with a 90% chance of success, I still believe she should be overruled if need be. However intelligent she may be, she may nonetheless lack the long-term perspective that an older person would have. Short-term pain for long-term gain? When you've only been around for ten or eleven years and you're in constant pain and misery, it may feel as if things will never get better. But they probably will, if the treatment is allowed to take place.
Federally, of course, this is an election year, which means the Tory regime is scattering a few little goodies and promoting its economic action plan with our tax dollars.
They've come under a lot of criticism for finally allowing income splitting for parents of young children, the argument being that only a few, already fairly well-off couples will actually benefit from it. Personally, I'm in favour of it - I just think it should be extended to ANY family who might wish to take advantage of it. After all, the family is still the most fundamental unit of society - and I hasten to add that I define "family" in the broadest sense of the word - as S. Bear Bergman so eloquently put it, folks connected by "blood, marriage, wine or glitter".
For similar reasons, I think the rationale for giving money to parents to choose their own child care arrangements (as opposed to only subsidizing licenced child care centres) is a sound one - as long as it's not misrepresented as a comprehensive solution to the myriad child care challenges that young families typically face.
Speaking of various types of families, I definitely thought it was a hopeful sign when two girls in grade six at a Catholic school were (after a bit of a battle) allowed to do a human rights project on gay rights, with an emphasis on bullying in the schools. This, added to the formation of gay-straight alliances in many schools under both the public and Catholic boards, at least represents some progress.
One of the pronouncements that caused me some dismay in 2014 came, surprisingly enough, from someone for whom I actually have the greatest of respect - Alex Munter. He would have made a wonderful mayor - better than our current one and certainly many times better than our mayor's immediate predecessor, who actually managed to defeat Munter. But I have some serious reservations about his plan to somehow integrate Children's Aid workers with CHEO people in an effort, I guess, to be more holistic with their care. I don't know what that means in practical terms, but the announcement raised some red flags for me.
First of all, won't it make parents think twice about taking their kids to Emergency even when that might be the best course of action? It's stressful enough to have your child suddenly become seriously ill or get involved in an accident, without having the additional
worry that you'll be erroneously suspected of physical or sexual abuse, Munchausen's syndrome by proxy, or any number of other syndromes that you may or may not have heard of! If the parents take the kid in anyway, there's a very real risk that they won't get the kid out again - meaning considerable stress for child and parent alike. Alternatively, parents might either delay getting treatment or try to treat the problem themselves, possibly resulting in more harm than good.
Admittedly, I have a rather jaundiced view of Children's Aid, something that Alex Munter probably doesn't . And who knows? Maybe he can actually foster a more constructive understanding amongst the various parties who in most cases, genuinely believe they are acting in the best interests of the child. But I'm not very optimistic.
So often, it seems that the child welfare authorities over-intervene when intervention is not even warranted (thereby creating needless anguish for the whole family), and fail to intervene when it is. Like the ten (eleven?)-year old First Nations girl with leukaemia, whose parents will not consent to chemotherapy, even though it would give the girl a 90% chance of survival. Instead, they have sent her to a clinic in Florida for "traditional" aboriginal therapy which seems to be neither particularly traditional nor particularly aboriginal.
Certainly the situation calls for considerable sensitivity. The ideal result would be that the family would sit down with the doctors and social workers and agree that with a good track record behind it, chemotherapy would be worth a try. Perhaps certain traditional healing methods could be used in conjunction with, rather than instead of, the conventional medical treatments.
But if that's not possible and appointing an interim guardian becomes necessary in order to save the girl's life, then at least it should be someone already known to, and trusted by the girl, likely a fairly close relative.
At her age, she should also have some say in how things will unfold. Still, if she rebels against getting a treatment with a 90% chance of success, I still believe she should be overruled if need be. However intelligent she may be, she may nonetheless lack the long-term perspective that an older person would have. Short-term pain for long-term gain? When you've only been around for ten or eleven years and you're in constant pain and misery, it may feel as if things will never get better. But they probably will, if the treatment is allowed to take place.
