Financial Shakeup this weekend

[catchacab]

Wellardmac wrote:

Okay, here are two of the examples that I mentioned - sadly, there are lots of cases just like these, so finding them wasn't difficult and I could equally have pulled other versions of the same story with different families.

http://www.breggin.com/schools.html

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=..._article=1

Want more? I could probably find some, it's not hard.

There are stories of states stepping in to remove children for the actions of the parents, as well as the actions of the children. Sometimes you look at the story and shake your head that they're stepping in over things that are really none of the state's business.

We're in agreement it's the job of parents to be parents and raise well adjusted kids. It's the government's job to stay the hell out of the way unless a child is being abused.

Parents have a responsibility to raise and educate their children. Additionally, this is not a nanny state and the government shouldn't be telling parents how to raise their kids.

Your first link, I agree, it was wrong for the school and govt to intervene as they did. ADD and ADHD are two medical disorders that are increasingly being diagnosed. Many cases of ADD and ADHD are due to a lack of parental guidance of their children! There are those children who are diagnosed with those disorders that truly have the medical problems (different levels of neurotransmitters) that cause them. A lack of discipline can present the similarly to ADD/ADHD. Now you have a school with classes full of these undisciplined children, who are disruptive to the rest of the class, preventing the remaining student from learning. So what can a school do. They can't go into the home to discipline the child. Many of these problems originated well before the child was school age. They can't physically isolate the child or children, drugging them is the only way the school can reduce the child's disruptions in class. This may be an example. sacrificing the few for the benefit of the many.

The second case, the court and doctors are correct. The patient, a child, doesn't have the knowledge and experience to adequately choose the correct therapy. Also the parents do not have the knowledge and experience either. In my office, I determine treatment. I base the proposed treatment on science and what is in the overall best interest of the patient. If a parent dictates what treatment they will accept for their child and refuses my recommendation or does not want to have my recommended studies preformed (generally radiographs), then they can find another doctor. The bottom line what I do, and what was done in your second example is done for the best interest of the patient.