You can login if you already have an account or register by clicking the button below.
Registering is free and all you need is a username and password. We never ask you for your e-mail.
Submissions should be about Q drops or a subject that has been mentioned by Q. Meta posts about Voat or the community are generally off-topic & subject to removal as unmentioned by Q; use submail for concerns or questions.
Freedom of speech is your right. Being a dick is our reason to remove this content. This includes concern-trolling; drama, gossip, or posts about other users; personal attacks; attacks on the community.
Voat Rules
Content violates spam guidelines
Content contains or links to content that is illegal
Content contains personal information that relates to a Voat users real world or online identity
[+]BadPenny0 points0 points0 points
ago
(edited ago)
[–]BadPenny[S]0 points
0 points
0 points
(+0|-0)
ago
(edited ago)
FTA:
"With “think less, screen more,” screening is based on the child’s examination, rather than their parents’ race, ethnicity, or status. Objective, high-risk criteria—such as bruising of the torso, ears or neck—prompt doctors to perform the testing that can identify abuse.
An uncomfortable byproduct of the new paradigm is that some non-abused children will be screened, and some non-abusive parents will be offended. Challenging as these encounters may be, children must be protected and biases must be rectified. The only way to achieve these goals is by implementing policies based on objective criteria.
The problem with this, however, is that if "think less, screen-more" is implemented and more children are scrutinized for abuse, then more parents will be terrorized by CPS, an organization that already does too much damage to innocent families. The Hill reported on this new technique. Perhaps as shocking as the plan itself is how nonchalant the essay’s authors, Dr. Richard Klasco and Dr. Daniel Lindberg, are about the life-altering consequences of their proposal. In an apparent attempt to downplay the harm that their plan will cause, Klasco and Lindberg wrongly suggest that the worst that will happen if they get their way is “some non-abused children will be screened, and some non-abusive parents will be offended.”
The real worst-case scenario happened to my friends, Rana and Chad Tyson, and it was far from merely an “uncomfortable byproduct.” While changing their infant daughter’s diaper, Rana and Chad noticed that she was not moving one of her legs and would recoil in pain whenever it was touched. Being the good parents they are, the Tysons immediately took her to her regular pediatrician. After being evaluated by the pediatrician, they were instructed to go to a local children’s hospital where the daughter who displayed symptoms and her twin sister were subjected to the same battery of x-rays utilized by the “think less, screen more” approach.
The Tysons ended up having their children kidnapped by the state while the doctors eventually figured out they had a genetic disorder. Meanwhile, the family had to declare bankruptcy in order to pay for the legal fees."
view the rest of the comments →
[–] BadPenny [S] ago (edited ago)
FTA:
"With “think less, screen more,” screening is based on the child’s examination, rather than their parents’ race, ethnicity, or status. Objective, high-risk criteria—such as bruising of the torso, ears or neck—prompt doctors to perform the testing that can identify abuse.
An uncomfortable byproduct of the new paradigm is that some non-abused children will be screened, and some non-abusive parents will be offended. Challenging as these encounters may be, children must be protected and biases must be rectified. The only way to achieve these goals is by implementing policies based on objective criteria.
The problem with this, however, is that if "think less, screen-more" is implemented and more children are scrutinized for abuse, then more parents will be terrorized by CPS, an organization that already does too much damage to innocent families. The Hill reported on this new technique. Perhaps as shocking as the plan itself is how nonchalant the essay’s authors, Dr. Richard Klasco and Dr. Daniel Lindberg, are about the life-altering consequences of their proposal. In an apparent attempt to downplay the harm that their plan will cause, Klasco and Lindberg wrongly suggest that the worst that will happen if they get their way is “some non-abused children will be screened, and some non-abusive parents will be offended.”
The real worst-case scenario happened to my friends, Rana and Chad Tyson, and it was far from merely an “uncomfortable byproduct.” While changing their infant daughter’s diaper, Rana and Chad noticed that she was not moving one of her legs and would recoil in pain whenever it was touched. Being the good parents they are, the Tysons immediately took her to her regular pediatrician. After being evaluated by the pediatrician, they were instructed to go to a local children’s hospital where the daughter who displayed symptoms and her twin sister were subjected to the same battery of x-rays utilized by the “think less, screen more” approach.
The Tysons ended up having their children kidnapped by the state while the doctors eventually figured out they had a genetic disorder. Meanwhile, the family had to declare bankruptcy in order to pay for the legal fees."