“Yeah, she said to deliver it here.”
“Right in the middle of the fucking thread? Don’t these things usually go in OPs?”
“Yeah, but you see the directions. She wanted the thing planted right here, behind her signature.”
“Eh, whatever. It’s her decision.”
…|-|
…| |
[sup][/sup]
|stoid|
[sup][/sup]
…| |
…| |
…| |
…| |
This may be too late but,
I agree with Stoid.
Yes, the adoptive mother was stupid. And she should have been more aggressive about protecting her child. But her stated goal was to help the child bond with her. Which is not evil. She was told, by two people who had some credentials, and who backed each other up, that this therapy would help the process. She was told that it would be tramatic, but in the end everything would turn out better. She beleived them. This, also, is not evil. When things got rough, she got upset enough that the “therapists” had to send her out of the room. Obviously she cared.
When a medical professional tells you that your child needs surgery, you tend to beleive them, even though it results in considerable distress and some risk of death. These therapists told her that the child needed “rebirthing”. Which, on the face of it, carries no risks of anything other than temporary upset. She beleived them. SHE WAS WRONG. She didn’t realize that these “therapists” were misguided, power-hungry, foolish, and ignorant of even the basic health precautions that a “mistress” tying up her “slave” knows about. She trusted them too much, and went against her own upset (remember, she had to leave the room) when they told her, as people who had done this beofre, that everything was going normally. Would you leave the O.R. during surgery if the doctor said you were interfering with your child’s care? Of course.
I think the mother had a little too much faith in doubtful licenses, or maybe too little faith in her own judgement to speak up. Putting too much faith in “professionals” is common. I think she was stupid, but there is no I.Q. requirement for parenthood. I think the evidence says that she was actively pursuing treatment for her daughter’s problems, acting in good faith, and following the advice that was given to her by people she had reason to trust. I don’t think she is evil.
The therapists I have no defence for.
here’s the differences to me. First of all, her life was not in danger. The adoptive mother’s feelings were in danger. Candace was not dying of a heart defect, or of cancer, or a brain aneurysm. <-- woah, spelling
this was a psychological experiment. And when they said to Candace’s mother (as a doctor would say when explaining necessary surgery):
“Well, here’s what we’re going to do. We’re going to cover her with blankets on the floor so she’s in the dark. Then we’re going to sit on her, push her, squeeze her to simulate birth. She may vomit. She may defecate. She may not be able to breathe for a few minutes. Then, if she whines we may have to humiliate her a little bit just to encourage her birthing, and all of this will make YOU feel better about how she feels about you.”
The mother said:
SOUNDS GOOD! WHERE DO I SIGN UP?
To me, that requires a touch of sadism. She wants her child to suffer and be humiliated so that she can be the mother’s subservient little girl.
icky, and somewhat evil.
jarbaby
Also, because we have evolved somewhat in our medical methodology since medieval times, people are generally UNCONSCIOUS during surgery. That is, they don’t feel the scalpel going in and things being pulled out and/or moved around. That little girl felt the weight and the terror and the pain, at least until unconsciousness eventually came, and never left.
Mischievous, a couple of points to consider:
The whole point of the “rebirthing” process, as I understand it, is for the child to be “reborn” into the arms of the waiting parent. By sending the mother out of the room, the therapists completely nullified the very concept. At that point, there should have been no reason to continue! But they did.
The mother left the room! I am not a parent, nor am I likely to be, but even I know that if I had a child, whether natural or adopted, that I loved as much as it is claimed that the mother loved Candace, I would have put a stop to things, then and there. The worst that would happen is that the “therapy” would have been a failure, but at least Candace would still be alive. Granted, the mother may not have known what, exactly, the procedure involved (hearing it described is different from witnessing it), so her inital intent may well have been good. But, as they say, “The road to Hell is paved with good intentions.” What makes the mother appear evil to the eyes of many here (from what I gather, anyway) is not the inital intent; it is the abandoning of the child she supposedly loved, during a time of life-threatening distress.
It is not the procedure which is evil, it is the fact that it was allowed to continue well past any reasonable period, all for the sake of the mother’s ego, not out of love.
As someone once told me during an especially painful time in my life, “Love doesn’t hurt.”
Stoid:
Ummm. Nope sorry. The use of the sheet and the pillows is most defineately to suffocate, just not to the point of death.
Like my burning. I won’t bur them to death, just char them a little.
It really is the same thing.
If you don’re believe me, put a sheet over your head and try breathing through a pillow. It’s long slow suffering suffocation.
Stoid, it’s not that you won’t condemn these people as evil monsters. It’s that you keep saying, “But they MEANT well!”
The road to Hell is paved with good intentions, eh?
From what I’ve read, I gather Candace just wasn’t very OPEN with Jeane. So? Give it time. You can’t rush this stuff. She just wanted to BOND to her, and have this fantasy of a child. Guess what? Life doesn’t work that way. Some people just aren’t very touchy-feely open and such.
But she sat there and watched as:
Her 70 pound “daughter” was crushed under almost 700 pounds of pillows and adults
Her “daughter” screamed for help.
Her “daughter” couldn’t breath.
Her “daughter” vomitted in a blanket. I can’t state this enough that Candace could have choked on her own puke.
Her “daughter” defecated all over herself.
Her “daughter” was squeezed, smothered, crushed and called horrible names, taunted and abused.
Jesus. To just sit there and cry because said daughter is REJECTING YOU? I would’ve rejected her too! Jesus, I wouldn’t want to bond with someone who let such a thing happen to me!
Candace missed her family. That’s NATURAL. I don’t care how nice Jeane supposedly was-Candace was missing her brother and sister and her real mother and her grandparents. Of COURSE she’s going to be withdrawn. To call her “troubled” because of that just totally blows my mind. She also seemed very willing to cooperate with the therapists and Jeane. That doesn’t sound to me like a child in a “power struggle”.
To me, she stood by and watched. To me, that’s as bad as people who stood by and watched as Kitty Genovese was killed…and did nothing.
Guin…thanks. That’s a perfect analogy. I’ve been trying to think of one all day.
Fenris
jarbabyj I agree with you, the cure should fit the illness. The risks of surgery seem justified when a child’s life is threatened, but the risks of therapy (which don’t normally include death) are justified when a child’s mental health, possibly lifelong mental health, are threatened.
You see this woman as mostly being on an ego trip. You may be right, but I don’t think so. If a child that I’ve been taking care of for some time shows no emotional connection to me, I would consider that a danger sign. It could be a physical/brain problem, such as autism or schizophrenia(sp?), or an emotional disorder, or simply not enough time passed. But I would go to someone to check it out, because no matter what the cause, a child who has no emotional connection her caretakers is likely in for some serious trouble. And if the people I took her to said, yes, this is a serious problem, and, yes, we absolutely need to do something about it, then I would believe them.
There’s another thread in the Pit right now where everyone is jumping all over Podkayne for presuming to understand someone else’s child’s needs. But here, we’re second guessing a parent’s best judgement. I think she may have been trying very hard to save an emotionally withdrawn girl and she trusted the therapists who said it might be rough. That doesn’t mean she enjoyed that decision. Maybe she was expecting too much affection, too fast. Or maybe she was absolutely right, and the girl WAS withdrawing from the world. Either way, it doesn’t seem like a malicious act to try and treat her.
Finch As to point one, the fact that the therapy was horribly misapplyed is the fault of the therapists. Yes, it was stupid, and pointless, and cruel, and deadly. The therapists did that, though, not the mother.
As to your second point, and yours tiggeril, there are situations where doctors inflict physical pain on awake children. I myself remember getting stitches taken out and having bandages ripped off infected wounds, and I know that some procedures, like relocating dislocated joints, are normally done on awake patients (though I don’t know why). I’m not surprised that the mother trusted the therapists who told her that some distress was necessary. I agree that she should have followed her own insticts and stopped the session when it got bad enough that she had to leave. But she didn’t have the confidence or the aggression or the whatever to fight the “authorities” on the technique, she probably thought she (the mother) was being inappropriately bleeding-hearted.
It sounded to me like she was trying to help the girl, and got suckered by some deluded assholes.
Oh, and about the whole “road to hell…” thing. I do think intentions matter. If I, acting according to my best judgement and with the agreement of my conscience, embark upon a route that seems the best not only to me but also to others who profess to have experience in these matters, and something goes horribly wrong, I do not feel that I have sinned. I don’t agree with a God who would condemn someone to hell for trying to do the right thing, but messing up.
This doesn’t remind me so much of the Kitty Genovese horror as much as those old psych experiments where people were told to keep electrocuting a man behind a divider. We all think we would behave better in such a situation, but I think the power of “authorities” is stronger than we would like. It’s easy to say that an act is evil or wrong in hindsight, but it’s harder to know the right course at the moment.
Shit on a fucking hickory stick!
So Stoid, according to your reasoning, anyone who commits a vile, murderous act is exonerated because THEY TRULY BELIEVED THEY WERE RIGHT? Or they were HELPING TO SOLVE THE PROBLEM?
I am sure these wackos who lock their kids in cages thought they were doing the “right” thing.
Ergo the wackos that withhold transfusions and other medical treatment from their children.
Ad Nauseum…
Hell, Ted Bundy thought he was doing the “right” thing.
The mother let that shit go way too far; she bears some responsibility. I find it a bit disturbing that you seem to absolve her because she felt that she was “helping” Candace even AFTER IT WAS FREAKING OBVIOUS the child was in great distress.
This case is precisely why this fringe science pseudo-psychotherapy bullshit disgusts me to no end.
Speechless in the West…
First of all, I refuse to crucify someone because he doesn’t display enough rage. I don’t think NOT BEING MAD ENOUGH is all that much of a sin.
Secondly, pretty much everyone who has attacked Stoid has misrepresented his point in some way. AT NO POINT did he say he wanted the mother exonerated. (The idea that she indirectly killed her own daughter, albeit adopted, will torment her for the rest of her life. That’s enough punishment as I see it.)
To label this woman as PURE EVIL is seriously uncalled for. It’s the same dealth-penalty-argument sticking point of seeing murderers and such as 100% EVIL. What if someone took the worst thing you ever did, put it up on a big screen, and told the whole world that that’s all you are? None of us should be so unlucky.
Now, I agree that her leaving the room pretty much kills the whole point of a rebirthing. Is that her fault or the therapists’? It’s the THERAPISTS’ fault.
Was the mother being a bit selfish? Sure. But that doesn’t make a person the devil. You can be enraged about the incident, but try not to let that rage mask the good intentions (or if not good, at least not evil) of the child’s mother.
Um, SToid is a female.
I didn’t say she didn’t show enough rage. She just refuses to see how WRONG the mother was.
I’m sorry, I don’t know about you, but to worry more about a child rejecting you instead of child dying=selfish evil cunt to me.
Doesn’t the quote that defines evil go something like…
I’d say the Bitch qualifys as evil!!!
They oughta put her in a bag, and exert 500 lbs of pressure too!
Doesn’t the quote that defines evil go something like…
I’d say the Bitch qualifys as evil!!!
They oughta put her in a bag, and exert 500 lbs of pressure too!
Stoid, a question: if the mother had honestly believed, deep down in her heart, that her child was possessed by demons, had given permission for/watched while her local cult leader and 4 of his followers had gone thru the exact same ritual with her as an “exorcism”, would you be reacting the same way?
You know, Stoid, I’d like to point out that Dubya has very good intentions and believes that he is doing things for the good of the country.
Often times, people who bomb abortion clinics believe they are doing things for the good of others. They truly believe this.
Does that make them less evil?
Well, I guess I’ll carve out my own spot in the middle of the fire-and-brimstone fest that’s going on here and say that I, too, agree with Stoid that the mother’s not an evil person. But not for the same reasons.
But what everyone seems to be overlooking is that it’s a crackpot method that had been employed hundreds, and most likely thousands, of times previously in this country with (to my knowledge) no previous fatalities. To say that the mother should have “known” that rebirthing could kill the girl when it had never killed anyone before despite being done many times is expecting too much, methinks.
I sincerely doubt that the therapists sat down with the mother and said, “We’re going to smother your daughter and let her lay in her own poop and vomit and there’s some chance that she might, in fact, die from this,” and the mother said, “Great! Sign us up!” I find it very difficult to believe that ANY parent, no matter how ‘evil’ or negligent, would sign up for something like this knowing that. So, then, does her ignorance to the possibilities of what might happen should something go wrong (as in this case it did) make her an evil person? Because if ignorance is now a litmus test for evil, there’s a hell of a lot of ‘evil’ people on this board and in the real world.
I would argue that Milgram proves that none of us really DO know what we would do in that situation, under that kind of stress. [n.b. For those not familiar with Milgram’s experiment and not willing to wade through the above link, he had subjects administer a series of increasing electric shocks to what they thought was another volunteer behind a screen. Well over half the subjects obeyed directions to the very end, even after the “subject” let out yells of pain, begged for it to stop, and ultimately ceased to respond.]
It’s hardly a stretch to liken the therapists to the shock-givers, and the mother (who presumably was in the room to ‘encourage’ the girl) to the subsidiary worker.
Was the mother ignorant of the potential dangers? Yes. Perhaps too easily cowed by the therapists once things went downhill? It would seem so. But evil? Not in my book. She’s no angel, and I don’t think I would trust someone who’s both that easily intimidated and that willing to try crackpot science with kids, but I wouldn’t call her evil.
Actually, I think there’s ample evidence that the mother should have known at the time that it happened. I’ll grant that prior to the events, she’d have no idea, however, watching as 4 large adults pressed on her child who was wrapped coccoon like, hearing her child beg that she couldn’t breath, hear the voice getting weaker and weaker, know that the child vomited and defecated in that enclosed space as well, given that she was a nurse all of that should have set off major alarm buttons.
Instead, she left the room. Wrong answer IMHO. I’ve not called her evil (just 'cause genearally I don’t use that term) but she’s certainly criminal and morally culpable IMHO.
Obviously this is a painful subject.
I have read the thread and it raised several points in my mind.
How did this rebirthing therapy get tested?
Surgery + drug procedures go through some pretty rigorous analysis. I find it unbelievable that some children volunteered for this terrifying experience just to see if it worked.
How serious was the original problem?
A couple of posters implied that there was simply an estrangement between the (adoptive?) mother and child. If so, this ordeal seems a way over the top response.
Why not use hypnosis?
It was stated that no other deaths have occurred using rebirthing. Perhaps the therapists ‘misunderstood’ something. But there are ** always physical dangers involved when anyone is restrained against their will**. (There was a case in the UK where an adult body-builder suffocated in under ten minutes while being arrested by several policeman.)
Why is such a dramatic show of force necessary? Even if an adult simply loses their balance, they could crush a child’s ribs.
Why did it take so long?
I feel sick thinking about the moment when the mother left the room. She’s doing this to ‘form a better relationship’ with the child, yet she can’t bear to stay and watch any longer?
And why didn’t the therapists call her back. (As someone pointed out, the mother needs to be there when the therapy finishes.)
What is the law?
I can see Stoid’s point that this was not necessarily intentionally evil. But evil was done, resulting in a terrible death.
In the UK, there is an offence called manslaughter, which is separate from murder. I am not a lawyer, but it applies to cases where reckless behaviour causes a death.
I understand the US has murder 1, murder 2 etc.
I don’t understand how the therapists could continue when the mother has left the room and the child goes quiet.
In summary, I too bitterly resent what happened. This ‘therapy’ seems about as useful as playing Russian Roulette to give someone ‘confidence’.
Give a nervous patient a gun with one bullet loaded, spin the barrel and tell them to press it against their head and shoot.
IF THEY DIE, YOU EXPRESS SHOCK THAT THIS COULD POSSIBLY HAVE HAPPENED.
F*ck them.