This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.
Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.
We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:
-
Shaming.
-
Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.
-
Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.
-
Recruiting for a cause.
-
Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.
In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:
-
Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.
-
Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.
-
Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.
-
Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.
On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
I personally would feel no qualms about doing something like that, though my usual practise is thankfully limited in its exposure to dementia patients. Call me overly sentimental, but I'm more fond of fields where I can mostly expect my patients to get better or my aid to ameliorate their symptoms, instead of holding their hands till they inevitably croak. There's a reason Geriatricians have a reputation for being unusually cheerful, kind and patient, they need it, because god knows they're not getting much validation from their patients skipping out the door.
There are entire care homes/neighborhoods in Nordic countries that are designed to carefully mimic a "normal" neighborhood, with cafes, parks and the lot. It soothes the minds of those who find normal care homes too clinical and scary, especially when they're too far gone to understand why they're there.
Is it bad to deceive them into thinking they're in a "normal" place? I don't think so, and at the very least I wouldn't if I imagined myself in their place.
In this case, the deception is in the direction of being intentionally more scary, but I can't find myself to begrudge the people who are otherwise at a wit's end to handle such problems without shackling their wards to a bed.
Well, for one, children grow up and (usually) become more mentally mature. That seems like an important point to me.
There are indeed cases of deception being applied to increase one's well being, as well as for causing discomfort in order to guide behaviour. Both for children and for the elderly.
What I would like to focus however are some things like for example:
-Use of fear to guide behaviour.
-Use of routines in favour of the caretaker's convenience, in detriment of the patients autonomy.
-Use of punishment for undesired behaviour
-Use of rewards as incentive for good behavour
-adequation of responsibilities according to the patient's ability
I think there are some double standards in the general view of how acceptable these things are in the care of children and people with intellectual disabilities. Of course, there is no consensus in each case, and it may even vary for different cultures. Also, the actual treatment is heavilly affected by the circumstances, and children more often enjoy the care of more goodwilling caretakers. But even in ideal situations, I think there is significant fragmentation between what what people believe are the best ethical standards for the treatment of children and for the treatment of the intellectually disabled
I think it would help if you add more clear examples of double standards in your top level post, so we can argue on an object level basis.
As is, I struggle to think of any overarching statements to make.
I will give some examples that come to my mind when it comes to double standards in the care of children and of the intellectually disabled.
it is more socially acceptable to say "If you don't stop crying I am going to walk away and leave you here forever" to a child. The same is more frowned upon if said to a disabled person.
it is more socially acceptable to ignore a child's wishes to control the time when they eat, shower and go to bed, while for the disabled it is more often seen as a harmful disrespect to their autonomy.
it is more socially acceptable to ground a child for misbehaviour than it is to do the same to a disabled person.
It is (sometimes) more socially acceptable to allow an intellectually disabled person to engage in activities that are harmful to their health (smoking, opting out of a medical procedure) than it is for children.
I don't claim these things have the same purposes and effects in all cases, and no treatment is a one size fits all. So yes, very often the difference in treatment is reasonable and justified.
But I think people put the "ethical considerations for treating a child" and "ethical considerations for treating a disabled person" in two different boxes for no justified reason.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link