After ripping on McDonald's yesterday, I'm here to admit that I'm a complete hypocrite.
Ethically, I think McDonald's reach into schools is wrong. Ronald McDonald visits, shows and reading programs all introduce very young children to the "wonders" of McDonald's. And I have a problem with that because while my children (occasionally) eat McDonald's, bringing the restaurant into the school makes it that much harder for parents who would prefer to keep their kids Mickey D and fast food-free. Heck, it makes it harder for those of us who wish to limit our McDonald's consumption to sometimes, special treats.
That said....the McDonald's reading records that my sons received at daycare earlier this week are working wonders. Boy #3, age 6, has started learning how to read and is really getting it.
Boy #2, age 8, who has previously shown very little interest in reading, has decided to get with the program also. Last night, after his bath and all by himself, he came downstairs and plowed through 10 easy readers. Then he came up to show me what he'd done. I'm not sure what's motivating him more: the fact that his little brother is learning to read or the McDonald's Happy Meal. Either way, I'll take it.
So yes -- I am selling out my convictions. While I'm morally opposed to McDonald's interference in education, I will show up at McDonald's tomorrow with two readers and two certificates good for two Happy Meals.
And you know what? If daycare gives me more certificates, I might even do it again.
Quick note: Got a kid who loves construction? If you do, be sure to swing by Gina Chen's Family Life blog. (She featured my blog back in April.) Enter her contest and you could win 4 construction books.
Showing posts with label ethics. Show all posts
Showing posts with label ethics. Show all posts
Friday, June 12, 2009
Tuesday, May 26, 2009
Political Purity Over Protection of Children?
Thirteen-year-old Daniel Hauser has returned home.
Hauser is the (homeschooled) Minnesota boy who last week disappeared with his mother, Colleen, in an effort to avoid court-ordered chemotherapy. The case has obviously sparked a lot of debate. It touches on medical ethics, parental authority and the rights of individuals to make choices out-of-step with the mainstream.
The fact that Daniel is homeschooled adds another layer to the debate. Mike the Mad Biologist posted an interesting response to my post, Full Consent. Check it out:
"My experience has been that homeschooling parents are mostly (a large majority) very much opposed to any kind of scrutiny from the outside whatsoever. The Hauser case is an example of why some is needed: Homeschooling in and of itself is not intended as a means of hiding what we would all agree to be extreme behavior (on the part of parents) but it is very easily used as such.
"It is really up to the homeschooling community to do something about this, but by and large the homeschooling community won't, because, I believe, most individuals in this community prefer their own political purity over the protection of children in their community overall, and do not care, and perhaps even relish, if they are viewed as intractable in this matter by the rest of society. "
I want you to read this and think about it. Really think about it. If you're a homeschooler, your knee-jerk reaction is probably to, well, call the guy an uninformed jerk. But his words are important because he's expressing a common concern. Whether you agree with him or not, his words reflect of the views of a significant portion of the public.
I've thought about Mike's words all morning, the one thought that keeps circling through my brain is this: his underlying assumption is that "someone else" -- the larger society, perhaps -- knows better than parents what is or is not appropriate for their children.
In my opinion (and in my case) I resist greater scrutiny of our homeschooling and family life because I don't believe that society knows better than I what I or my children need. I resist greater scrutiny because I don't even agree with the larger society about what is or is not important. Do I think it's important for my kids to learn to read? Yes. At age 6? No.
Do I relish my own political purity (or, you might say, my individual freedom) over the protection of children in the homeschooling community? No. But do I think that greater oversight of homeschooling and homeschooling families will mean greater protection for our children? No. In fact, I think that greater oversight would cause more damage to more families and children.
What do you think of Mike's comments? Why?
Hauser is the (homeschooled) Minnesota boy who last week disappeared with his mother, Colleen, in an effort to avoid court-ordered chemotherapy. The case has obviously sparked a lot of debate. It touches on medical ethics, parental authority and the rights of individuals to make choices out-of-step with the mainstream.
The fact that Daniel is homeschooled adds another layer to the debate. Mike the Mad Biologist posted an interesting response to my post, Full Consent. Check it out:
"My experience has been that homeschooling parents are mostly (a large majority) very much opposed to any kind of scrutiny from the outside whatsoever. The Hauser case is an example of why some is needed: Homeschooling in and of itself is not intended as a means of hiding what we would all agree to be extreme behavior (on the part of parents) but it is very easily used as such.
"It is really up to the homeschooling community to do something about this, but by and large the homeschooling community won't, because, I believe, most individuals in this community prefer their own political purity over the protection of children in their community overall, and do not care, and perhaps even relish, if they are viewed as intractable in this matter by the rest of society. "
I want you to read this and think about it. Really think about it. If you're a homeschooler, your knee-jerk reaction is probably to, well, call the guy an uninformed jerk. But his words are important because he's expressing a common concern. Whether you agree with him or not, his words reflect of the views of a significant portion of the public.
I've thought about Mike's words all morning, the one thought that keeps circling through my brain is this: his underlying assumption is that "someone else" -- the larger society, perhaps -- knows better than parents what is or is not appropriate for their children.
In my opinion (and in my case) I resist greater scrutiny of our homeschooling and family life because I don't believe that society knows better than I what I or my children need. I resist greater scrutiny because I don't even agree with the larger society about what is or is not important. Do I think it's important for my kids to learn to read? Yes. At age 6? No.
Do I relish my own political purity (or, you might say, my individual freedom) over the protection of children in the homeschooling community? No. But do I think that greater oversight of homeschooling and homeschooling families will mean greater protection for our children? No. In fact, I think that greater oversight would cause more damage to more families and children.
What do you think of Mike's comments? Why?
Friday, May 22, 2009
Full Consent
A couple months ago, we talked about the sad case of Alfie Patten, the British 13-year-old who was thought to have fathered a daughter, Maisie, with his 15-year-old girlfriend. More recently, we've talked about Daniel Hauser, the 13-year-old Minnesota boy who's been court-ordered to undergo chemo for Hodgkin's lymphoma.
There have been updates to both stories. Alfie Patten is most definitely not the baby daddy. Fourteen-year-old Tyler Barker is.
And Daniel Hauser, as you may have already heard, is on the run. He and his mother disappeared two days ago and may be in Mexico.
Daniel's story has received a lot of media attention, not the least because it's heart-wreching and extremetly complicated. As a nation, I think, we're very sensitive to government intervention into private lives. (Sorry, Republicans -- Democrat or no, I still think most Americans agree that the government has no business treading into personal matters) And yet...the idea of a boy dying when medical treatment could well forestall such an ending is almost too sad to comtemplate. It stimulates our "somebody, do something!" centers like nothing else.
But as Daniel's story received more attention, additional details about the boy and his family leaked out. Words like "homeschooled." And "illiterate."
Great. Just what we need. The word "homeschool" attached to another extreme case. Because trust me, I've been around the block enough to know exactly what kinds of thought this news inspires. Listen to Greg Laden:
"I really have nothing against homeschooling, but it must be admitted that among the homeschoolers, there is a disproportionate share of crazy people that should not be allowed near children. And, the way homeschooling operates politically, the children of homeschooling families are less likely to be rescued from their abusing parents (when there are abusing parents) than other kids. That is a simple fact, and all the homeschoolers who are not abusing their own children but who maintain that society must simply turn away are part of the problem, not the solution. "
Yes, please -- lump us all together. Make blanket statements that are virtually impossible to prove. (Because really, if I had to argue it, I'm pretty sure I could argue persuasively that there are plenty of non-homeschooling parents who don't belong near their children or any others as well.) Muddy the waters further by debating homeschooling when a child's life is at risk.
And yet, I see the concern. While I'm not at all sure that court-ordering chemo is the right thing to do, I understand that at this point, most Americans are wondering if the boy has enough information to decide if he wants to undergo chemo. They question his understanding of the disease, treatments and available options. They wonder if his parent's beliefs are interfering with his access to information.
Which brings up the issue of consent -- the common thread, if you ask me, between Alife Patten, Tyler Barker and Daniel Hauser. Do these kids fully understand their situations?
Watching the video of young Alfie, it's completely apparent that this kid, well-intentioned though he may be, has no idea how to be a father. Yet that's the kind of thing he (and Travis, and all other young boys comptemplating sex) need to know. If you're going to have sex, you darn well better know what it is and how it works, what the consequences are and how you'll handle them. That's full consent: when you know all possible facts and make an informed decision.
People are concerned about Daniel right now because they're not sure he's given full consent.
I don't know. I don't know what Daniel knows. And I truly don't know whether he's best served by being left alone to die or by being forced into an oncology clinic.
I do know, though, that I consider it my job to inform my sons about the world. We homeschool, but we don't homeschool to limit the flow of information; we homeschool to expose our children to the wide world of ideas. In my opinion, the whole world would be a better place if we stopped sheltering our children from uncomfortable ideas, reality or even beliefs that conflict with our own, and instead listened to them, answered their questions and helped them develop full consent.
There have been updates to both stories. Alfie Patten is most definitely not the baby daddy. Fourteen-year-old Tyler Barker is.
And Daniel Hauser, as you may have already heard, is on the run. He and his mother disappeared two days ago and may be in Mexico.
Daniel's story has received a lot of media attention, not the least because it's heart-wreching and extremetly complicated. As a nation, I think, we're very sensitive to government intervention into private lives. (Sorry, Republicans -- Democrat or no, I still think most Americans agree that the government has no business treading into personal matters) And yet...the idea of a boy dying when medical treatment could well forestall such an ending is almost too sad to comtemplate. It stimulates our "somebody, do something!" centers like nothing else.
But as Daniel's story received more attention, additional details about the boy and his family leaked out. Words like "homeschooled." And "illiterate."
Great. Just what we need. The word "homeschool" attached to another extreme case. Because trust me, I've been around the block enough to know exactly what kinds of thought this news inspires. Listen to Greg Laden:
"I really have nothing against homeschooling, but it must be admitted that among the homeschoolers, there is a disproportionate share of crazy people that should not be allowed near children. And, the way homeschooling operates politically, the children of homeschooling families are less likely to be rescued from their abusing parents (when there are abusing parents) than other kids. That is a simple fact, and all the homeschoolers who are not abusing their own children but who maintain that society must simply turn away are part of the problem, not the solution. "
Yes, please -- lump us all together. Make blanket statements that are virtually impossible to prove. (Because really, if I had to argue it, I'm pretty sure I could argue persuasively that there are plenty of non-homeschooling parents who don't belong near their children or any others as well.) Muddy the waters further by debating homeschooling when a child's life is at risk.
And yet, I see the concern. While I'm not at all sure that court-ordering chemo is the right thing to do, I understand that at this point, most Americans are wondering if the boy has enough information to decide if he wants to undergo chemo. They question his understanding of the disease, treatments and available options. They wonder if his parent's beliefs are interfering with his access to information.
Which brings up the issue of consent -- the common thread, if you ask me, between Alife Patten, Tyler Barker and Daniel Hauser. Do these kids fully understand their situations?
Watching the video of young Alfie, it's completely apparent that this kid, well-intentioned though he may be, has no idea how to be a father. Yet that's the kind of thing he (and Travis, and all other young boys comptemplating sex) need to know. If you're going to have sex, you darn well better know what it is and how it works, what the consequences are and how you'll handle them. That's full consent: when you know all possible facts and make an informed decision.
People are concerned about Daniel right now because they're not sure he's given full consent.
I don't know. I don't know what Daniel knows. And I truly don't know whether he's best served by being left alone to die or by being forced into an oncology clinic.
I do know, though, that I consider it my job to inform my sons about the world. We homeschool, but we don't homeschool to limit the flow of information; we homeschool to expose our children to the wide world of ideas. In my opinion, the whole world would be a better place if we stopped sheltering our children from uncomfortable ideas, reality or even beliefs that conflict with our own, and instead listened to them, answered their questions and helped them develop full consent.
Saturday, May 16, 2009
What Would You Do?
A judge in Minnesota just ruled that a 13-year-old boy must undergo chemotherapy.
The boy, who has Hodgkin's lymphoma, and his parents have been refusing chemotherapy on the grounds that it conflicts with their religious beliefs. According to one article, though, the boy did have one chemotherapy treatment and refused additional treatments after suffering untoward side effects.
Sigh.
This case troubles me on so many levels. Should a boy die because he parents refuse treatment? Should a child be forced to endure a medical treatment that is, at best, unpleasant, and, at worst, harmful?
The judge ruled for treatment because "overwhelming evidence" suggests that the boy will live with treatment, but die without it.
Yes, but...Is any decision ever that easy? What it he lives, but suffers side effects that destroy his quality of life? Potential long-term side effects include infertility, heart disease, lung damage and the tiny but very real possibility of developing a second cancer in the future. Should it be up to a judge to make that decision for a boy and his family?
What troubles me most about this case, I think, is that it illustrates how hard it is to die in this country. I'm not saying the boy has a death wish, and I'm not saying that his parents wish to hasten his death. I am, however, saying that years ago, they wouldn't have had a choice.
Today, though, numerous "medical miracles" help keep death at bay. Chemotherapy holds off cancer. Kidney transplants bring new life to ailing bodies. Medication stimulates blood flow.
But I'll let you in on a little secret: we all die sometime anyway. All the treatments, all the options -- sooner or later, the body will go anyway. So what right do we, as a society, have to tell anyone how long to hang on? Who are we to say, "you must undergo this treatment, as unpleasant as it may be, because it will help you live longer?" What's wrong with letting nature take its course?
I understand the complexities involved when the patient in question is a minor. The issue, of course, is whether the minor fully understands what's going on, or whether the child is left to die because of his parents' beliefs.
And yet...something about this just doesn't feel right.
The boy, who has Hodgkin's lymphoma, and his parents have been refusing chemotherapy on the grounds that it conflicts with their religious beliefs. According to one article, though, the boy did have one chemotherapy treatment and refused additional treatments after suffering untoward side effects.
Sigh.
This case troubles me on so many levels. Should a boy die because he parents refuse treatment? Should a child be forced to endure a medical treatment that is, at best, unpleasant, and, at worst, harmful?
The judge ruled for treatment because "overwhelming evidence" suggests that the boy will live with treatment, but die without it.
Yes, but...Is any decision ever that easy? What it he lives, but suffers side effects that destroy his quality of life? Potential long-term side effects include infertility, heart disease, lung damage and the tiny but very real possibility of developing a second cancer in the future. Should it be up to a judge to make that decision for a boy and his family?
What troubles me most about this case, I think, is that it illustrates how hard it is to die in this country. I'm not saying the boy has a death wish, and I'm not saying that his parents wish to hasten his death. I am, however, saying that years ago, they wouldn't have had a choice.
Today, though, numerous "medical miracles" help keep death at bay. Chemotherapy holds off cancer. Kidney transplants bring new life to ailing bodies. Medication stimulates blood flow.
But I'll let you in on a little secret: we all die sometime anyway. All the treatments, all the options -- sooner or later, the body will go anyway. So what right do we, as a society, have to tell anyone how long to hang on? Who are we to say, "you must undergo this treatment, as unpleasant as it may be, because it will help you live longer?" What's wrong with letting nature take its course?
I understand the complexities involved when the patient in question is a minor. The issue, of course, is whether the minor fully understands what's going on, or whether the child is left to die because of his parents' beliefs.
And yet...something about this just doesn't feel right.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)