On babies and bathwater
I'm not sure I have an answer to this, but the root problem is something that continues to mangle public debate and public policy in this country.
The basic story is that every time a case of horrific child abuse is reported in the news (usually involving the death of the child), there is a massive increase in reports of child abuse which result in a rise in the number of kids removed from their families and placed in foster care. In the article they refer to it as "foster-care panic."
Let me say for the record that children should be removed from abusive situations and, given the potential for long term damage to the most vulnerable among us, everyone should err on the side of caution in suspected cases.
But there has to be some method to avoid this panic syndrome. The trauma the children experience has got to be devastating. Imagine living in a peaceful, loving home and the neighbor (or maybe someone with an agenda or a vendetta) dials up the abuse hotline during one of these panics because they mis-interpreted something they heard or saw. Or maybe they are angry or crazy. Out come the authorities to yank the frightened kids away from the bewildered parents.
The kids end up in foster care (and although I'm sure most foster parents have all the best intentions, the system does not have a great track record) and, after a long process with family courts and social workers and massive disruption of their lives, hopefully end up back with their families.
But the story points up a larger issue. It seems like our public debate - and therefore our public policy - is completely hijacked by the abuse of anectdotal evidence. One widely publicized case of child abuse and we get foster care panic. We repeal the estate tax because one family lost a farm (actually, I don't think the Bush administration ever found such a family, although not for a lack of looking) and it gets pushed by the advocates of whatever the policy is and exploited by the media.
Some of the most egregious abusers of this concept are the talking heads, the very people who have the staff and resources to know better. Bill O'Reilly comes to mind (and with it a wave of nausea) with his "War on Christmas" jibberish. One school makes a bad decision regarding lyrics in Christmas songs and suddenly it's a "secular progressive" attack on all that is good and decent in America.
The whole "frivolous lawsuits" driving doctors away thing is another huge example. The statistics just don't support the claim. Not now, not ever. But ask a thousand people why health care costs so much and you'll hear about lawsuits en masse.
We are all culpable in this. The lazy, money driven media is spoon fed this slop by someone with an agenda to push, and we lap it up and pass it along and make it real instead of spending the time to find out the real facts.
Which brings us back to the first issue - what to do with the "foster care panic" after a widely publicized case of child abuse? How about funding the agencies charged with child welfare appropriately so they can hire qualified, trained staff and investigators to, well...spend the time to find out the real facts? So maybe there is a solution to that problem.
As for the rest of it...
The basic story is that every time a case of horrific child abuse is reported in the news (usually involving the death of the child), there is a massive increase in reports of child abuse which result in a rise in the number of kids removed from their families and placed in foster care. In the article they refer to it as "foster-care panic."
Let me say for the record that children should be removed from abusive situations and, given the potential for long term damage to the most vulnerable among us, everyone should err on the side of caution in suspected cases.
But there has to be some method to avoid this panic syndrome. The trauma the children experience has got to be devastating. Imagine living in a peaceful, loving home and the neighbor (or maybe someone with an agenda or a vendetta) dials up the abuse hotline during one of these panics because they mis-interpreted something they heard or saw. Or maybe they are angry or crazy. Out come the authorities to yank the frightened kids away from the bewildered parents.
The kids end up in foster care (and although I'm sure most foster parents have all the best intentions, the system does not have a great track record) and, after a long process with family courts and social workers and massive disruption of their lives, hopefully end up back with their families.
But the story points up a larger issue. It seems like our public debate - and therefore our public policy - is completely hijacked by the abuse of anectdotal evidence. One widely publicized case of child abuse and we get foster care panic. We repeal the estate tax because one family lost a farm (actually, I don't think the Bush administration ever found such a family, although not for a lack of looking) and it gets pushed by the advocates of whatever the policy is and exploited by the media.
Some of the most egregious abusers of this concept are the talking heads, the very people who have the staff and resources to know better. Bill O'Reilly comes to mind (and with it a wave of nausea) with his "War on Christmas" jibberish. One school makes a bad decision regarding lyrics in Christmas songs and suddenly it's a "secular progressive" attack on all that is good and decent in America.
The whole "frivolous lawsuits" driving doctors away thing is another huge example. The statistics just don't support the claim. Not now, not ever. But ask a thousand people why health care costs so much and you'll hear about lawsuits en masse.
We are all culpable in this. The lazy, money driven media is spoon fed this slop by someone with an agenda to push, and we lap it up and pass it along and make it real instead of spending the time to find out the real facts.
Which brings us back to the first issue - what to do with the "foster care panic" after a widely publicized case of child abuse? How about funding the agencies charged with child welfare appropriately so they can hire qualified, trained staff and investigators to, well...spend the time to find out the real facts? So maybe there is a solution to that problem.
As for the rest of it...
posted by John at 1:33 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home