Sunday, October 07, 2007
Child Snitches: Pediatricians Getting
The Scoop On Mom And Dad
(Face of child intentionally blurred)
"Does daddy have guns in your home?"
"Do mommy and daddy smoke pot?"
"Do mommy and daddy booze it up?"
These are some of the questions your child may be asked by their pediatrician.
Oddly, many parents in Boston, MA seems upset about this:
Thanks to guidelines issued by the American Academy of Pediatrics and supported by the commonwealth, doctors across Massachusetts are interrogating our kids about mom and dad’s “bad” behavior.
We used to be proud parents. Now, thanks to the AAP, we’re “persons of interest.”
The paranoia over parents is so strong that the AAP encourages doctors to ignore “legal barriers and deference to parental involvement” and shake the children down for all the inside information they can get.
And that information doesn’t stay with the doctor, either.
Debbie is a mom from Uxbridge who was in the examination room when the pediatrician asked her 5-year-old, “Does Daddy own a gun?”
When the little girl said yes, the doctor began grilling her and her mom about the number and type of guns, how they are stored, etc.
If the incident had ended there, it would have merely been annoying.
But when a friend in law enforcement let Debbie know that her doctor had filed a report with the police about her family’s (entirely legal) gun ownership, she got mad.
Why would parents be upset with doctors asking their children questions without parental consent?
Dianne Neely has no official way to complain about an intrusive "Teen Questionnaire" that a pediatrician gave to her 13-year-old daughter, Amanda, without parental consent.
The 27 questions, ranging from sexual activity to drug use, including, "Is there a gun in your home?" and "Is there conflict [domestic violence]?", violated no law.
Liberals have spent decades telling us that if something is for the children we just have to learn to live with it. Parents will simply have to learn to live with this tattletale tactic encouraged by the AAP. After all, it's for the children. You're not against the children, are you?
I'm glad this happening. I hope this tattle on your parents mentality sweeps the nation with pediatricians quizzing children on the behavior of their parents. Pediatricians and the government need to know if mommy and daddy are drunkards, if they're pot-heads, if they're gun owners and if they have anger management problems. Why, it's for the children, and what is more vital and important to the world than something that is for the children?
How can anything that is for the children be considered bad or viewed as being negative?
"Do mommy and daddy cheat on their taxes?" It's for the children.
"Are mommy and daddy 'swingers'?" It's for the children.
"Do mommy and daddy watch naughty videos?" It's for the children.
"Is mommy or daddy an aggressive driver? Do they harbor road rage?" It's for the children.
"Do mommy or daddy ever get angry or upset with you?" It's for the children.
"Do mommy and daddy argue a lot?" It's for the children.
"Has daddy ever hit or slapped mommy? Has mommy hit daddy?" It's for the children.
Suddenly the Nanny State comes virtually full circle in questioning children about their parents' behavior and we have parental outrage. Well...isn't that special? I wonder how many of these same parents are anti-gun, anti-cigarette smoking, anti-smoking in outdoor areas, anti-liquor, pro-school levy, pro-socialized health care, pro-Tax increases - all because it's for the children?
Suddenly, parents don't like the Nanny State intruding in their private lives? Suddenly, parents don't welcome the Nanny State questioning their children about their behavior? Welcome to the club, folks, welcome to the club. May of us have been waiting for your outrage at the Nanny State for a long, long time. But it's too little and too late for me to stick up for you.
I'll bet many of these same parents who who complain about their children being questioned by pediatricians didn't voice their opposition to other privacy issues; the privacy and property rights of bar and restaurant owners who were happy to have smokers as their customers.
I'll bet many of these same parents who complain about their children being questioned by pediatricians didn't voice their opposition to random highway sobriety check-points that overstepped the boundaries of privacy intrusion, let alone in many cases violating the Fourth Amendment.
I'll bet many of these same parents who who complain about their children being questioned by pediatricians didn't voice their opposition to restrictive laws and ordinances that prevents law-abiding citizens with permits to carry concealed handguns for their own safety and protection.
I'll bet many of these parents who complain about their children being questioned by pediatricians didn't voice their opposition to banning drinking a beer or a cocktail at a public park or a beach.
I'll bet many of these same parents who complain about their children being questioned by pediatricians didn't voice their opposition to increasing my property taxes for school levies, asking me to help pay for their child's education and extra-curricular activities. No, I bet many of these parents actively campaigned for absconding with more of my money for the benefit of their children, because...well...it's for the children.
Now, I'm supposed to be concerned or upset that your children face an inquisition from their pediatrician who is asking about your parental behavior?
Frankly, I'm fresh out of sympathy and compassion for the outrage expressed by parents whose children are asked by pediatricians about the behavior of their parents.
Many of us tried telling you that someday "for the children" would come back to bite you in the ass, but no, you didn't listen. All you could do is see whatever the issue was at the time through your own, narrow prism of being "for the children."
Well, I agree with you. You've convinced me that if it's for the children, it must be good.
Do you parents like your children being quizzed by their pediatrician about your behavior? How can you not? It's for the children? How does it feeeeeeeeeeeel?
Oh...you don't like it? Too bad, not sad - too little, too late - for me to care or support you.
©2007
Labels: For The Children, Full Circle Liberalism
Comments:
<< Home
notification is a serious point you make, and i have argued they should have it with abortion, so i back ya up on this.
the shame is, things are bad with many, too many parents.
the shame is, things are bad with many, too many parents.
I do agree that - at least here in MN - if a minor wants to get a tatoo they have to have parental consent, but minors don't need parental consent for an abortion. WTF is up with that kind of mentality?
I am dead serious about me not being on the side of the parents on the questioning of their children by the pediatricians. Wow - suddenly it hits home for them that the Nanny State has entered their lives. In Liberal Massachusetts of all places! Damn, it's funny - hilarious - and I have no sympathy for the parents at all on this one.
The parents waited too long to speak up and out against the Nanny State, now it bites them in the ass and they act like I'm supposed to be outraged along side with them? I'm not. They asked for this, they got it. They need to learn to live with it.
Post a Comment
I am dead serious about me not being on the side of the parents on the questioning of their children by the pediatricians. Wow - suddenly it hits home for them that the Nanny State has entered their lives. In Liberal Massachusetts of all places! Damn, it's funny - hilarious - and I have no sympathy for the parents at all on this one.
The parents waited too long to speak up and out against the Nanny State, now it bites them in the ass and they act like I'm supposed to be outraged along side with them? I'm not. They asked for this, they got it. They need to learn to live with it.
<< Home
Alabama Internet
accordance and compliance with Fair Use Section 107 U.S. Copyright Code.
All other images and content © 2005-2009 David Drake.
Not responsible for content contained at linked sites.
Policy on commenting:
- Anonymous comments have little chance of being published.
- Comments made on posts 60 days old or older have little chance of being published.
- Published comments do not necessarily reflect the views of this blog author.
- Discretion of publishing or rejecting submitted comments rests solely with the owner and creator of this blog.
- Comments that egregiously "plug" (i.e. advertise or promote) another site or blog will be rejected. This doesn't mean you cannot include a link to your story, blog or to another site, but don't go overboard.
- Profanity is not a disqualifying factor, but profane rants solely for purposes of profanity are unlikely to be published.
- The owner and creator of this blog is not liable or responsible for the opinions of those who comment.
