Professionalism and Responsibility

lucwarm:

Would you ahve preferred:

  1. Do not immerse your child into boiling water

  2. Do not set your child on fire.

  3. Do not use your child as a jackstand

  4. Do not store your child in a refrigerator

I mean that’s pretty specific.

Are your children infants, toddlers or older?

If they are older leaving them alone for a moment or two may not represent a problem.

Otherwise I don’t see why they need to be left unattended to be loaded into a car.

Assuming that you have a baby and a toddler you can carry the baby while holding the toddler’s hand. Help the toddler into the car, put the baby in the car seat and then put the toddler in his seat. Nobody gets left unattended.

Am I missing something?

IzzyR, I was right there with you until that last one. You’re on your own. :smiley:

xeno:

I would state by way of reply that leaving your children unattended in the car for an extended period of time, unto the point of death is not a “common accident.” I’d bet that it’s so uncommon, in fact, that we actually hear about nearly every case on the news. And it’s that uncommonness that makes me believe that it probably sometimes happens to people who were otherwise good, diligent parents who fucked up.

One of the drummers I used to work with was, in his day job, a social worker. He worked at Cleveland’s MetroHealth, an enormous metropolitan hospital. He related to me cases where accidents like this had happened, or where women who had lay down with their children for a nap rolled over and crushed them to death. These women were invariably distraught. Many of them had to be committed for mental health treatment afterwards. I’m not prepared to believe that they were all simply incompetent parents. I am prepared to believe that a lapse in judgement that could happen to anyone led to a tragic and life-altering mistake.

Clearly we could go around and around with specific examples. I could propose that some way, somehow, the drain became clogged. Or that with the tub’s floor wet and slippery, your daughter fell and hit her head. Things happen to even the best of people, even those who go to extremes in taking precautions. But I suppose we are not so different in philosophy after all, because…

Some of your earlier statements in the thread may have confused me, as did your use of the world “nil.” I am content with the statement that some accidents will never happen with proper precaution except in the most improbable of situations. The specific instance of having a very young child dying of heat stroke because he was left alone in a car should probably never happen, but it is impossible to account for every situation without being present, or at least having an intimate knowledge of its details. I certainly think these people should be held accountable for their actions – accidents or not. I am not so sure that we should hasten to condemn all accidents that seem impossible to us, because things can happen.

I think that the potential for accidents involving the bathtub in your home is a case in point. You thought you could “live with the consequences,” because you think you’ve taken sufficient precautions that “tragic consequences” will not arise. Well, a young child playing unsupervised with water has tragic potential, even if nothing happened. I don’t know how old your child is, but if you take so many precautions in the bathtub with her, I think it is reasonable to suggest that you would not voluntarily leave her in there to play alone…just in case something would ever happen. If something ever did happen to her, I don’t think you would want people you don’t even know to condemn you for your negligence in not obstructing her access to the bathroom, saying that you “had to follow a chain of incompetence,” and were “negligent, irresponsible and unreliable.”

Maybe you were criminally negligent. Maybe this was just your one fuckup amid numerous other precautions ranging from child care courses to filling in tiny ponds, but it was the one that got you. There are too many maybes to be using absolutes like “never.”

In many cases, I’m sure you’re right. Tragedies do occur, regardless of precautions. I’m equally certain that Scyllababy will never receive a scald from tap water while in his house under his care. (Knowing Scylla’s procedure for pan-fried steaks, I’m not so sure about grease burns, but there you go…)

Scylla Alllow me to point out that your rule “never leave your child unattended” is likely to be broken on a daily basis in your very home, unless of course, you or your wife is with your child when she’s asleep. Naturally, one or the other of you must therefore also be awake and on guard while young one sleeps. Naturally, too, should the guard need to relieve themself and/or take a shower, go get something to eat etc. they should either take the child with them and/or wake the other parent.

And, of course, single parents are SOL, they must never sleep, etc. And of course, if they perchance become ill themselves, they should bypass the middleman and simply put their kids up in a foster care home.

And frankly, I believe that most parents do in fact make real attempts to safe guard their kids from dangers that they can see and predict. However, none of us is in total control of everything around. And, of course, until our child has demonstrated a new ability, we are unaware that they have it (ie the time I put the ‘leash’ on my son and he was able to extract himself from it).

This does not mean that I never hold the parent responsible. However, until the circumstances are known and evaluated, I’m not willing to condem all parents whos kids have died in cars.

Scylla, I appreciate where you are going with this and as a “professional” parent of two I do appreciate the point you are attempting to make. However, consider the case of a temporarily misplaced child in a store.

I don’t know if this has ever happened to you but it happened to Ms.QS and I once and that was one time too many. Without going into a long description, it happened at a GapKids store when I turned away momentarily to consider Ms.QS choice of clothes for out 3 year old who was standing next to me at the time. When I turned back a fraction of a minute later, she was gone. Heart stopped! Panic only marginally held off by reason and instant action. We had the store manager close the doors immediately and we soon found our three year old sitting innocently on the base of a clothes rack playing with some stuffed toys while obscured from view by long garments. She found a quiet place to amuse herself, bless her heart.

Now technically, this may be called neglect by your standards of reasoning. In fact my mind, while not tired or weary, was distracted for a legitimate reason for mere moments. But those mere moments caused me countless grey hairs and a lesson I won’t soon (read: ever) forget. Was I “un-professional”?

PLD, I don’t know about true Scottsmen or Psychic Readers but it occures to me that you are currently neither a “true” nor “professional” parent. As such, I cannot say with certainity whether or not your opinion on the subject is more or less rational. I can say that you (as a non parent) have a different frame or reference entirely. I think that you should perhaps consider giving Scylla a little more wiggle room on this topic. I do agree with you and Izzy in that since we can all agree that not all people are created equally, we cannot honestly expect the same level of behaviour or capacity for “professional” parenting from everyone. Things which seem blindingly obvious to Scylla or myself may not be that obvious to others. For instance, I speculate that one of these days, Scylla’s amateurish tinkering may result not only in a funny story but also in his possible demise deserving of a Darwin award . Will he, at that point, consider himself a “professional” parent by foolishly risking his own life and thus depriving his kids of a father?

Strike that rational part. Please make it realistic: as it pertains to actual parenthood and the emotions associated with that (pre)occupation.

OK, I was thinking more of a situation where the kid goes into the tub by himself and turns on the water out of the blue. If the kid is actually taking a bath, he needs supervision in any event, to avoid drowning.

That’s fine. What are the statistics that this hospital is putting out?

To answer your question, I am not deliberately missing your point, and shall not accuse you of deliberately missing mine. I will however note that in the examples that I gave you, I specifically chose examples where hindsight would allow you to realize that greater attentiveness on your part would have prevented the accidents. Those accidents were preventable. They happened due to your neglect. They were not analogous to elephants escaping from the circus.

Simply because a given mistake was preventable does not mean that a person has been criminally negligible.

you first said that

Which you explained to mean that

And you now say that

Been there before, my friend. :slight_smile:

QuickSilver, you’re right, I’m not a parent, but I do have two young nephews and a niece (ages 12, 5 and 3, respectively). And I know from incompetent parenting, because my sister can be pretty bad at times. I could tell you stories that would turn your entire head grey and make Scylla spontaneously combust. (Remind me to tell you about the time she drove with them to Niagara Falls with two relative strangers and was arrested on drug charges.)

I didn’t know that being short was a criminal offense… :wink:

I’m not a parent, but Scylla’s level of precautions seems like overkill to me. But I also have a real problem with the whole concept of “no risks are acceptable when children are involved”. (I realize that you didn’t quite say that, Scylla, but it does seem to be the prevailing attitude in society generally). The fact is, there are always risks. They cannot be eliminated, only minimized. And it only makes sense to minimize them to the extent that the costs of doing so do not outweigh the expected return.

Mathematically speaking, the “no acceptable risks” mindset implies that children are priceless. While the “value” of a child is absolutely incalculable, I don’t think that means that we have to go to total extremes to protect it from any harm at all. I expect to put gates on the stairs and covers on the outlets when I have children, but I’m not planning to lay down an inch of foam rubber on top of all my hardwood floors to try to protect against bumped heads and skinned knees. (I will probably keep the heat up warm enough that I don’t feel bad about the kids going barefoot, just to improve security).

The cost of keeping the hot water heater set low are undoubtedly worth it to Scylla, especially since he probably especially fears burning, given his own experiences. That doesn’t mean it would be worth it to every parent. I would probably fret that the water in the sink wasn’t hot enough to get the dishes really clean, instead. And I don’t think it would make me a bad parent if I was more worried about that than about scalding. There are many acceptable ways of parenting, and people who fail to match Scylla’s standards are not “bad” or even “unprofessional” parents.

I think you and SCYLLA are just having a difference of opinion about what actions are or are not reasonable. First, I assume that you mean that an average person would leave their kids in the car, not could – the average person could do a lot of things. Criminal negligence is:

Black’s Law Dictionary (6th ed.) at 1033. So the question is whether a reasonable person leaves his or her kids unattended in a car. This, to me, obviously depends on facts specific to each situtation: How old are the kids? How safe is the location? How hot/cold is it? How long with the parent be gone? The is a difference between leaving a 12-year-old in a car for five minutes while you run into 7-11 for a gallon of milk and leaving an infant in the broiling hot sun for hours.

SCYLLA seems to be arguing that the “reasonable” person will take every possible precaution. But, as others have pointed out, you simply cannot wrap kids in cotton batting and protect them from every danger, foreseeable or not. Even in relating your own circumstances, SCYLLA, I detect some rationalizing. Your child toddles out and turns on the water in the bathtub but the worst that could happen is that she and the bathroom get wet? Wrong. A far worse thing would be for her to try to get in the tub, slip and hit her head, and injure herself very badly. Who would be to blame then? Would your parenting be negligent? Would it be criminally so?

There is a difference between the “reasonable person” standard and a standard based on optimal behavior – precisely because the average person doesn’t always act optimally. Arguing that we should strikes me as overly optimistic. We just don’t. Even when we try to, sometimes we don’t. None of us do, not all the time.

your assumption is incorrect. In fact it leaves me wondering if you’ve read the thread. At no point have I defended deliberately leaving kids in cars, and I think someone who does this is indeed criminally negligible. What I am alluding to is a specific scenario in which a person thought she had dropped off her kid at the babysitter when she had not. I see this as being analogous to an auto accident, doctor’s accident or the like.

The definition of criminal negligence that you cite appears to concern the deliberate ommission on the part of the person etc. I don’t know how accidental ommission is covered.

It makes no sense in this context to ask if an average person would forget their kids in a car. It is the nature of freak accidents that they wouldn’t happen to most people. Most people won’t win the lottery either but the ones who do are indistinguishable from the losers. What my position is is that the reason this freak accident happened to this woman and not to others is not necessarily because she is any different (i.e. more incompetent, negligible) than the others. Rather that she happened to have a mental lapse in such a manner and in such a circumstance as to have tragic consequences.

I noted earlier and apparently it is worth repeating that there are two separate disputes in this thread. One is what is the reasonable amount of precaution that a person must take. Two is about the consequences of accidently failing to take precautions that are reasonable.

It suddenly occurred to me that I should clarify that I mean someone who leaves a child in a car in a manner that places the child in danger from overheating etc. This was not meant to imply that it is wrong in every circumstance - it depends on the circumstances, as noted by various posters.

IZZY –

[quopte]Your assumption is incorrect. In fact it leaves me wondering if you’ve read the thread.
[/quote]

Wonder no more. Rest assured I have always read the thread (and any other, cited threads) before I chime in.

“Deliberately”? Where did “deliberately” come from? No one has yet been discussing intentional acts, and you have seriously misread my post if you think I was construing you as having done so.

I’m not sure what a “doctor’s accident” is. It is only analogous to an auto accident if you (general you) are 100% capable of preventing the accident and if the accident could only take place if you make a serious, for some unthinkable, omission.

“Accidental omission” is covered under the rubric of recklessness. You do not have to intend your conduct to be harmful for it to be harmful and even possibility criminal. If you act with a gross and reckless disregard for the safety of others, and either act or fail to act in a way that virtually every other person would act/fail to act in, then you will be held liable, and possibly (though rarely) criminally so. If you are so stupid that you, for example, throw your baby in a lake expecting her to swim to shore and she drowns, the fact that you didn’t deliberately kill her will no, and should not, save you from possible criminal charges.

It absolutely makes sense. That is one way to determine whether someone’s behavior ought to be excused – “it could have happened to anyone.”

Um, having your car flattened by a big boulder is a freak accident. Being struck by lightning is a freak accident. Leaving your child in a car unattended, whether purposely or not, is not a freak accident.

Manifestly, they are not; the winners are the ones who won. The lottery is a bad analogy anyway, since you have no control over whether you win or lose. Surely you will admit that each of us has the actual control over whether or not we leave our kids in the car.

The place where the “reasonable person” inquiry comes in is when we ask whether the “mental lapse” she suffered is one that is understandable and/or excusable. For many, SCYLLA included, it is not. You think it is an understandable mistake; he, quite obviously, does not. You disagree regarding whether the lady’s forgetfulness was reasonable; you apparently think it is, he thinks it isn’t. As I have already said.

I noted earlier and apparently it is worth repeating that there are two separate disputes in this thread. One is what is the reasonable amount of precaution that a person must take. Two is about the consequences of accidently failing to take precautions that are reasonable.

And the word is “negligent.” “Negligible” means “very little; next to nothing” and refers to amount. Criminality aside, it is pretty clear the woman was negligent. Negligence is failure to exercise reasonable care in such a manner that you breach a duty owed to another in such a way that you damage them. Forgetting you even have children would strike most as a failure to exercise reasonable care. Leaving them in the car so long that they die breaches the duty every parent has to protect and keep safe his or her children. The damage is obvious – the children died. We can actually have an interesting discussion about whether such actions are criminally negligent or, on the other end of the spectrum, excusably negligent, but there seems to be little way to argue that they are not, in fact, negligent.

Well in that case I apologize for having suggested otherwise.

As noted, the tests you measured against seemed to imply this.

a doctor’s accident is a doctor - mostly a surgeon who on one occaison messes up with tragic ocnsequences. The auto accident was brought up earlier in the thread - I’m talking about a case where the guy turns out to have been too tired etc.

You are jumping from Point A to Point Z. No one has referred to someone who leaves a child in a car with the intention of harming the child. The scenario was that the person intended to be negligent. Meaning made a concious decision to disregard the possible harm to the child in their care. This in analogous to your case of throwing the baby in the lake. By contrast, in my case, the person did not make a consious decision to be negligent.

Exactly. Not “it would have happened to anyone” as you suggested.

Please let’s not get to arguing about the term “freak accident”. Call it “extremely uncommon accident” if you will.

Oh. Now that I think about it my whole point makes no sense - obviously this woman is different than others - her child died in a car, other peoples’ did not. But of course what I really meant was whether this woman was different in some way that caused her child to die in the car, or did she have the bad fortune to have her failing result in tragedy while others’ did not. The analogy to lottery is obvious. Are the winners different in a way that caused them to win, or did they happen to win?

My understanding is that the “reasonable person” test is a test of the action - an action is defined as reasonable if a reasonable person might deem it proper in such a circumstance. In this instance, the action itself is clearly unreasonable - no one would deem it proper. The question is whether the action is indicative of a failing that is beyond that which society must suffer due to human imperfection or not. To apply the “reasonable person” test would appear to give the same name to two different concepts.

It is beyond obvious that the woman was negligent in this particular instance. The question is whether this incident is indicative of a general negligence in this woman’s childcaring philosophy or ability. Or is it an isolated mistake such that might happen to anyone.

Scylla, do you have a lock on your toilet?

Enugent:

No. It is not the concept that no risks are acceptable. Overinsulation carries its own consequences.

However, exposure of helpless children to needless significant risks which are easily avoidable is inexcusable.

Lowering the hot water heater is a prudent way to avoid bathtub scalding. There are other ways, but this one is perfect. You cannot scald yourself on that which does not exist.

My and most standard dishwashers contain their own heating elements, so worrying about the safety of washed dishes isn’t a concern.

Wring:

If you examine my guidelines carefully, you’ll see that I distinguish between the levels of vigilance necessary in a controlled and uncontrolled environment. The upstairs of our home is such a controlled environment where one can let down their guard to a certain degree with confidence. Similarly, while my child is sleeping in her crib my guard can be let down.

Now that she has suddenly developed the skill to climb out of her crib we have taken other precautions, but that one caught me by surprise.

When I operate my chainsaw, I try to be professional, but suspect that I am still an amateur. Oddly enough, my big Stihl chainsaw has a sticker right on it that says it is a professional chainsaw, and represents an extreme hazard of kickback maiming and death. It warns me that I better know and understand it before I use it, and even suggests that it may be too much saw for the job, and wouldn’t I be better off using another wussier chainsaw.

(If somebody is curious to know the exact wording of the sticker, I’ll go and get it sometime.)

Now I’m a city guy that moved to the country, and I really don’t know what I’m doing.

Every time I pick up that chainsaw to do a job that needs doing, I have severe misgivings. It is so powerful that when you hit the throttle it torques in midair. Every time I put the chainsaw down after a job, I feel like I’ve gotten away with something.

As an amateur, I try to be extremely careful, and to keep it as simple as possible, but living here requires that I use it quite often in a manner best left to somebody that actually knows what he is doing.

Every time that I pick that thing up, I know that I am exceeding the limits of my skill and expertise, and rolling the dice.

Nobody is making me do it. It’s an informed decision, and the life I’m risking is my own.

One of the reasons that we are selling this farm is that as a parent I would like to be around, and I would rather not be doing these kind of things anymore.

When I was 16 to about 26 I was immortal. I was sure that nothing could hurt me, and I could handle every single situation. Now, in my midthirties I find that I’m not half the person I used to be and that there are all kinds of situations that I can’t handle and dangers that will promptly extinguish my existence If I expose myself to them.

Now there are some things at which I am professional. My father was and still is a professional marksman. He is what is known as a perfect shot, and so am I.

The difference between us is that my father is an unusually gifted marksman while I am somewhat less than average.

However one of the greatest lessons my father ever taught me was by indoctrinating me with a professional level of riflery training.

He showed me exactly how perfection is achieved.

My father is capable of never missing a shot. He has attained perfection in this regard.

On one of my father’s rifles, I’ll use his favorite, the one he taught me on, a Tikka .22 Hornet, he will never miss.

I have never seen him miss, and as a former Recon Marine Sniper, and a decorated combat veteran I am willing to take his word on this within the limits that he has defined it.

As part of my father’s training as a Sniper he spent 8 hours a day for several weeks strapped tightly into a rifle in a position of “bone on bone.” The idea is that when he is strapped in there is no tissue or muscle involved, the rifle is resting as completely as possible within a cradle of solid immovable bone. As he looks through the scope the only movement that occurs is a slight pulsing of his heartbeat.

My father knows that weapon the way a person knows a piece of their anatomy. He maintains it, he cleans it, he knows it inside and out, and he keeps it in perfect working order.

While handling it he is anal retentive about care and technique, and he protects it in a way that any parent would be proud to emulate with their child. He ensures that it is not jarred or disturbed or otherwise knocked out of its precise working condition, and when not in his posession it is carefully stored to protect it.

The scope is zeroed in at 200 yards, and it is marked at that point on the dials of the scope.

He keeps a book on this rifle. Every time he shoots it, he begins with a “cold barrel shot,” which confirms that the rifle is still true and precise in its settings and adjustments.

Within the book is the history of every cold barrel shot that my father has ever taken with this rifle. There are notes on windage, range, altitude, inclination, different types of ammo, different lots of the same type of ammo, notes on his handloads etc.

Once my father has taken the cold barrel shot, he is perfect within his limitations and that of his rifle and ammo. They are all known quantities with defined and tested limits.

For example, at x yardage, and y windage and a stationary target of Z size, my father is capable of guaranteeing a hit and making good on that guarrantee every single time.

Within the extremely rigid and defined confines of his and his equiptments limitations, he is perfect.

The odd thing is that my father puts a lot less effort and time into his rifles and riflery than a lot of gun nuts. He knows exactly what he is doing, and he is incredibly efficient while doing it. In short, he is a professional. He completely understands and works within his limitations.

It is, to my mind, a beautiful thing.

This is not to say that my father can make every shot. But, as a professional my father can make certain guarrantees in certain circumstances.

As a professional my father is cognizant of his limits.

Now, if my father attempts a shot outside of the limits of his perfection, while he may not be able to guarrantee success, he knows exactly what he is doing and the risk of failure that he is taking.

Because of his professionalism even when my father attempts to step outside of the limits of his perfection he has a great chance of success.

My father you see, knows what the boundaries are, and has made the effort to explore them and discern them. He does not step unknowingly into alien territory.

Now an amateur with a gun cannot tell you with certainty anything. He can take a shot and literally anything can happen. There is no zone of perfection there are no discened limitations and he has no idea what the boundaries are. The amateur figures that his gun is in working order and the scope is accurate and makes a guess, sometimes a damn well educated guess before he pulls the trigger. But the truth is it is all alien territory to this amateur.

Both my father and that amateur may make the exact same shot , side by side, and be succesful The difference is my father knew. The amateur did not.

On the other hand, when I pick up my chainsaw I do not know what my limitations are. I do not know when I have crossed that boundary of surety. I can make no guarrantees at all. In short, I am a fool, and if and when something happens to me, I will have only myself to blame for my own stupidity in getting in over my head. I am an amateur. I lack the expertise to know when I’m being stupid, to know when I am endangering myself. I know some things, but not enough.

Now, as a parent it is not possible for me to work within the limits of my perfection. There are places and there are circumstances where I can make assurances and guarrantees and there are places where I cannot.

But, as a professional (which I beleive and sincerely hope that I am,) I have made educated choices, and eliminated foolhardy risks so that my chances of success are as high as they can be within my limits, which are known, and I don’t exceed them lightly.

This lady who left her kids in the car to die was an amateur. She literally did not know what she was doing. She did not know what her limits were, and she went sailing across her boundaries in blind ignorance.

Now it is ok for me to be an amateur with my chainsaw, because I am the one who will pay the price for my folly.

But being a parent means that your child pays the price. To be a good parent, one must be a professional. Yes, a parent will have to take risks. Yes, a parent will have to work outside the limitations of perfection. But a parent better damn know what they are, and a parent better take a professional attitude towards discerning, knowing and limiting risks before the fact. A parent better be capable of evaluating their own behavior, and the risks it entails. If they do not not only are they amateur, they are negligent.

Say, Scylla, do you have a toilet lock?