6 year old hand cuffed

Discussion in 'Ethics, Morality, & Justice' started by sifreak21, Apr 18, 2012.

  1. adoucette Caca Occurs Valued Senior Member

    One thing I'd point out is the teachers really do know this kid.
    Remember this is the end of the school year and she's been in trouble before.
    We know she has run away from school three times before.
    I'm betting this is not the first "temper tantrum" she has thrown either, this one was probably just the worst.

    And my guess is, though just 6 years old, she probably learned pretty quickly that the adults at school were somewhat impotent to stop her, and so they may have had to call in adults that COULD stop her.

    Just sayin.
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  3. Bells Staff Member

    You mean like your "definitive proclamation" about my children being "free range animals"?

    You are so low, that you go after people's children in your pathetic and petty anger?

    We actually do not do "shit like this to its children".

    But I understand you had to find the worst case scenario site to try and prove your point. I suppose I should not expect anything less from you, seeing that you are the type of person to attack another person's children because you're pissed off about something or other.

    The Bill being proposed in Western Australia would give children the right to consent to medical procedures that may have otherwise been forced on them. In other words, they are trying to give the children a say in what is done to them. The issue with the Bill is that there is no definition on how mentally capable a child has to be before he or she can consent or refuse a procedure.

    Seeing that children are not capable of forming or making legal decisions, nor are they legally allowed to sign a contract (if they did, it would be deemed unbinding), I have a hard time understanding how the conservative and well, right wing, Premier of the State and his conservative Government is going to be able to pass it without severe ammendments.

    While the Bill may give children an out from parents who may try to force certain treatments and procedures on them that they may not agree with, its wording also leaves it open to a lot of immoral and dangerous risks to the children themselves.

    But nice try JDawg.

    So I'm not "making you wet" JDawg?

    If you want to talk about insult and condescension, you might think about your actions and what you actually PM people you barely know and what you then say about other people.

    You have obviously never had children.

    Actually, parents do know how to deal with their children's temper tantrums. They deal with them all the time. Teachers are supposedly trained in education, communicating and dealing with small children. And they are hired to do so. If they are unable to handle a small temper tantrum (and believe me, if tearing posters off walls, tipping over a small shelf which then hit the principal and jumping around and screaming is all that she did, that's actually not a bad one) without calling the police and worse, allowing and consenting to the police to handcuff and put her in a squad car to take to the police station as though this was somehow acceptable to them, then they have no place being in that classroom.

    You have stated yourself the school and its staff and the police acted wrongly and badly in the case. Or this is just you arguing with me because you suddenly have a bee up your butt and have a pathological need to argue with me?

    Our teachers can actually read.

    And if we are to compare, yes, we are better.

    Calling an ambulance and taking a 6 year old to a hospital because she's having a temper tantrum..


    Sooooo much better.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    And then we have you, making a target of other people's children and attacking and insulting said other people's children by saying they are "free range animals".
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  5. Asguard Kiss my dark side Valued Senior Member

    Could you have found more of a propergander site? Seriously

    For one thing ECT isn't a "barbaric" practice, it's an effective last resort for server depression which is resistant to antidepressants and which can't be treated by CBT because the patient is to shut down. It's done under anastic so that it doesn't cause pain. Would you call cardioversion and the doctors who do it "barbaric"? It's used on patients in persistent conscious VT, the patient is sedated ( but not unconscious) with medaz and then is defibed at a very specific point in there rythum. Is that barbaric?

    As for sterilisation it's only used in the most servere cases for the patients benefit, has nothing to do with eugenics

    Bells I don't understand your reference to contracts, medical consent in Australia is 16 at the latest, it's never been 18 (at least according to current legislation) and if the patient can show the doctor they can understand the conquences of the treatment and act in there own best interests then they can consent younger than that and control there own medical treatment without parental interference. Certain procedures such as sterilisation were never under the ability of parental consent anyway, only the guardianship board and the supreme courts can authorise that.

    However maybe there is something different about this bill I'm missing, the ABC aticle is very positive of it to be honest but I'm having a hard time finding the bill. The article on depression net though critical specifically refers to "informed consent" which is the case around the country. If the informed but is given the apropriate strength it should sort out most issues because someone to young or impaired can't give informed consent. The advocacy services appear strong, I would personally prefer the mental health board moved under the control of social services instead of health the way it is in the other states where it's the guardianship boards but *shrug*. The depression net article says it kids as young as 12 MAY be able to consent and that's consistent with SA legislation which is the benchmark for the rest of the country. As long as there are the usual safeguards that the child can understand the options being offered and can act in its own best interests (the normal safeguards for informed consent) I don't see an issue.


  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  7. Bells Staff Member

    The concern with the Bill is that there is no definition of the level of mental incapacity a child could be under before they are unable to consent. The age is also as low as 12. In short, you could have 12 year old mentally ill patients consenting to treatments like electroshock therapy or even surgery like a sterilisation. Another big and huge concern is that doctors could be recommending these treatments to their child patients and possibly convincing them that it works and will make them better and the children can pretty much bypass their parents and have it done (case in point, sterilisation).

    This bill, while it could be good in theory in that parents cannot force their mentally ill children to be sterilised, for example, is too broad and can result in other disastrous situations. The idea is good that children get to have a say in what happens to them, but at the moment the Bill could allow these children to become victims to unscrupulous doctors and parents. Frankly, I don't think a 12 year old mentally ill child could understand the consequences of being sterilised and this Bill would allow these children to make that decision for themselves, even against their parents wishes.
  8. Balerion Banned Banned

    Bells, I'm done with you twisting my every word to suit your pathological need to be insulting. I'm aware that your life is a pile of crap right now, so I'm going to try not to take it personally, but you are obnoxious and unbearable, and it's only too bad for this site that JamesR apparently values those qualities in his moderators. After seeing how you handle yourself here, I'm not surprised that almost all of the quality posters that used to be here are no longer.

    I mean, you called me a murderer to no consequence. That's the type of place Sciforums has become.

    Look, I hope you feel better, or do whatever you need to do to get your head on straight, but in the meantime you should consider taking a sabbatical.
  9. Bells Staff Member

    Your sole complaint, in effect, is that I did not allow you to complain about Islam in that thread.. or more to the point, you felt angry that you would be called a bigot if you made such comments about Islam because of what Breivik did. I compared you to Derbyshire, not Breivik. I did say your ideology and your beliefs towards Muslims, and the language you used, was virtually identical to what he said. Take of that what you will. That you cannot understand how inappropriate your words were, well, that is something you need to figure out for yourself. But your main gripe is that I called you out for what you said when you inserted yourself in that thread and made that comment.

    But lets look at your performance, shall we? You decided to argue with me on something we virtually agree on (ie that the school's actions were bad) because you have an issue with me and you were angry.

    As for James. He knew I would not apologise because he knew why I said what I said and how I said it. You forget JDawg, moderators do talk to each other about everything that happens and we do share our thoughts and feelings and we do explain our actions in the backroom.

    You can try and make this about me as much as you want. You are just pissy that you were called out for saying what you said when you said it and in that context. Commenting on my health and making derogatory comments on my children? Hey, you know what? After what you said in that thread, I'm not surprised.

Share This Page