Yesterday, an anonymously delivered comment challenged my logic and the subsequent conclusions. My title was LOGIC TELLS US MCFD HAS TO GO. I used Aristotelian premises to make unconditional statements and uncompromising deductions. The writer convincingly disputed the soundness of my comparisons and compelled me to review my thought processes.The writer observed, “I think it is a dangerous comparison saying that child protection is either effective of ineffective. Most things are not black and white like your comparisons (cat is either white or not white, or it is either raining or not raining). One could make the same comparison that open heart surgery is either 100% effective or not 100% effective and since it is not 100% effective it should no longer be a treatment option. If we take this line of thought we could essentially make a claim to discontinue all health care treatments. I think that if something is 80% effective it is something we continue to do. To state that 100% effective is the only way we keep a program is a very odd statement. We could use that rationale to rid the need for school. As School is not 100% effective for everyone.”
That was well written and effectively argued.
I realized that I had overstated what I still believe to be true. I recognized that my piece was a virtual discard of the baby with the bathwater. I customarily seek not to do that when I write. I may have written from a weary disposition and with foggy attention to my subject.
So, forget the logic analogy. It accomplishes little and confuses the issues. What I prefer to say is that performance reviews, ministry assessments, published opinions, reports by the Representative of Children and Youth, observation of the increase of court cases and the backup of cases in the judicial system, and the personal testimonies of hundreds of grieving parents convince me that the Child, Family and Community Services Act needs to be reworked in order to better insure that the necessary role of a Ministry for Children will protect children while safeguarding families and respecting parental rights. Then I believe there will be a higher probability that apparent injustice does not occur among innocents and that corrective and restorative efforts among families succeed.
Thanks Ron for acknowledging my comment. |I appreciate your ability to re-evaluate your thoughts. I don't have a firm opinion of the child welfare system but your blog gives me food for thought.
ReplyDeleteMy logic, heart, and soul all tell me Child welfare has to go; they certainly do more harm than good.They should be replaced with a system that doesn't have so much unlimited power and authority, and where they actually help abused kids,aren't so intrusive, and leave innocent families alone.There also has to be an Ombudsman or some agency that keeps them accountable and in check.
ReplyDeleteI understand your original point and your correction.
ReplyDeletePerhaps the qualification that the MCFD implementation and reality of their process has to go is correct.
If the MCFD actually followed and was accountable to their own standards, things would be very different. It is tragic that the people who have fought so hard for change and standards have to watch the rest pretend to follow the rules