So, since there is a bit of chatter going on about PANOC (Physical Abuse and Neglect of Children) it seems that it might be worth making a few points clear.

There is more than a little misinformation getting thrown about (not to mention some very disreputable reframing of information)...

So, if you ever suffered sunburn as a child growing up, welcome to experiencing neglect first hand. By definition, failure to provide protection against harm constitutes neglect...

I have made the point more than once (to deaf ears, or perhaps in this context blind eyes) that issues pertaining to neglect and abuse become far more serious if they're chronic. As such, whilst a case of sunburn absolutely constitutes neglect, it would only be chronic if it were sever and happened often... Same goes pretty much for most (not all because some forms of abuse particularly are immediately threatening to long term well being) forms of abuse and neglect.

To bring this into some perspective relevant to this board, I have made the comment that I agree that religious education is a form of child abuse... I have also qualified this that it is not chronic per se. That is an opinion only, based on knowledge of how these terms apply.

The pitfall for many is that, over time and largely thanks once again to our sensationalising (if that isn't a word I am claiming inventors rights...) mass media these two words, abuse and neglect, have been demonised where it is the ultimate sin just to mention them, as is evident just in this place alone. The problem is, that misconception goes much further than just this board.

I doubt many will take the impact of this on board, but it seemed appropriate to try at least.

Addressing issues of chronic abuse and neglect, for the present at least, is addressed with a big stick approach by and large. That is, or at least, appears to be a failing of the way we do community at the moment. The fact that people need to be employed to be mandatory reporters and professional child protection workers is a damning indictment on how we do community. The harsh reality is, obviously, that the professional child protection industry is also going to get it wrong at times.

Protecting our children needs to be a whole of community approach. We may also need to rethink this "ownership" of our children idea, people get very upset when their parenting practices are questioned, challenged or outright rejected...The old I will raise my children my way comes out. It is erroneous thinking, they're not your children, you are their carer/parent...

I'm not sure you are using the word chronic correctly Phem ... or i am confused as to your meaning.

Wouldn't religious indoctrination, if as you argue it is a form of abuse, be a chronic abuse as it occurs over a long period of time?

mothra wrote on Nov 6^th, 2015 at 1:26pm:

I'm not sure you are using the word chronic correctly Phem ... or i am confused as to your meaning. Wouldn't religious indoctrination, if as you argue it is a form of abuse, be a chronic abuse as it occurs over a long period of time?

That covers the occuring often bit, but let's be honest, is it really that sever?

Bare in mind, I ask that quite clearly from the perspective of someone who sees it as abuse - it's just not that serious.

To put that into perspective, there are increasing numbers of people who turn away from their particular religious upbringings for example... Now if it were "sever" that would be harmful to their ultimate well being.

Also, underpinning the mythical stories, the fire and brimstone bits etc there is still with ALL religions elements of care as well, this cannot and should not be discounted.

Now, when and if the religious teaching involves significant harm (potential or real) then we are getting to the "chronic" threshold. By significant harm we probably should consider genital mutilation in all it's forms, refusal of blood transfusions, refusal of medical treatment, harmful practices described as exorcism etc etc etc... Then we are talking chronic abuse.

So, in short, whilst religious education is ongoing for most of a young person's life, it would be disingenuous, nay blatantly ignorant and/or dishonest to suggest this was going to be "severely" harmful consistently. I am sure we could find examples of harm through education, however, I would be equally sure other factors would come into play such as developmental issues, cognitive development and/or mental health.

I realise whilst my stated position might be offensive to those of faith, I would respectfully suggest to them that they need to listen to the intent and not buy into their own emotional response.

I see our dependence on organised religion as a flaw and not as inherently evil. Some religious leaders by their actions throughout history have demonstrated evil to be sure though.

Quote:

Protecting our children needs to be a whole of community approach. We may also need to rethink this "ownership" of our children idea, people get very upset when their parenting practices are questioned, challenged or outright rejected...The old I will raise my children my way comes out. It is erroneous thinking, they're not your children, you are their carer/parent...

Where's the 'like' button

mothra wrote on Nov 6^th, 2015 at 1:26pm:

I'm not sure you are using the word chronic correctly Phem ... or i am confused as to your meaning. Wouldn't religious indoctrination, if as you argue it is a form of abuse, be a chronic abuse as it occurs over a long period of time?

Also, good point, this is part of the issue with paid child protection vs whole of community approach. The issue needs to be debated by those at the coal face and addressed by those who live it.

Technically speaking sometimes when parents reprimand their children and do so whilst their own emotions are accelerated is a form of abuse... This could happen throughout a child's upbringing... So, it is ongoing, BUT, the degree of harm is either non existent for many (partly due to the overall quality of the relationship) or to possibly some emotional harm (no, I am not saying that's ok, BUT, on the sliding scale of what we can deal with sensibly) this would not be chronic either.

Sometimes we yell at our kids - that's not great, but it happens lots, for some more than others.

II agree Phem. A religious upbringing can in no way be seen as abuse but can a moderate religious upbringing really be considered any kind of abuse at all?

I mean, really?

At worst it is causing the child to become frightened of consequence according to parental values. All parents do that, to some extent or another.

Phemanderac wrote on Nov 6^th, 2015 at 1:44pm:

mothra wrote on Nov 6th, 2015 at 1:26pm: I'm not sure you are using the word chronic correctly Phem ... or i am confused as to your meaning. Wouldn't religious indoctrination, if as you argue it is a form of abuse, be a chronic abuse as it occurs over a long period of time? Also, good point, this is part of the issue with paid child protection vs whole of community approach. The issue needs to be debated by those at the coal face and addressed by those who live it. Technically speaking sometimes when parents reprimand their children and do so whilst their own emotions are accelerated is a form of abuse... This could happen throughout a child's upbringing... So, it is ongoing, BUT, the degree of harm is either non existent for many (partly due to the overall quality of the relationship) or to possibly some emotional harm (no, I am not saying that's ok, BUT, on the sliding scale of what we can deal with sensibly) this would not be chronic either. Sometimes we yell at our kids - that's not great, but it happens lots, for some more than others.

I'm struggling with your definitions Phem. First chronic and now abuse. I would not consider a parent reprimanding a child while at a heightened emotional level abuse. Abuse is more than that. Abuse is the intent to cause harm, or at least lack of due care. I think you hit the nail on the head with 'harm'. Abuse causes harm.

Do you think a religious upbringing causes harm?

Phemanderac wrote on Nov 6^th, 2015 at 1:20pm:

So, since there is a bit of chatter going on about PANOC (Physical Abuse and Neglect of Children) it seems that it might be worth making a few points clear. There is more than a little misinformation getting thrown about (not to mention some very disreputable reframing of information)... So, if you ever suffered sunburn as a child growing up, welcome to experiencing neglect first hand. By definition, failure to provide protection against harm constitutes neglect...

Absolute BULLSHIT...getting sunburned as a child simply increases your immunity to further sunburns... like playing in the dirt increases your immunity to germs (despite the numerous stupid commercials for Dettol Handwash products)

Phemanderac wrote on Nov 6^th, 2015 at 1:20pm:

So, since there is a bit of chatter going on about PANOC (Physical Abuse and Neglect of Children) it seems that it might be worth making a few points clear. There is more than a little misinformation getting thrown about (not to mention some very disreputable reframing of information)... So, if you ever suffered sunburn as a child growing up, welcome to experiencing neglect first hand. By definition, failure to provide protection against harm constitutes neglect... I have made the point more than once (to deaf ears, or perhaps in this context blind eyes) that issues pertaining to neglect and abuse become far more serious if they're chronic. As such, whilst a case of sunburn absolutely constitutes neglect, it would only be chronic if it were sever and happened often... Same goes pretty much for most (not all because some forms of abuse particularly are immediately threatening to long term well being) forms of abuse and neglect. To bring this into some perspective relevant to this board, I have made the comment that I agree that religious education is a form of child abuse.. I have also qualified this that it is not chronic per se. That is an opinion only, based on knowledge of how these terms apply. The pitfall for many is that, over time and largely thanks once again to our sensationalising (if that isn't a word I am claiming inventors rights...) mass media these two words, abuse and neglect, have been demonised where it is the ultimate sin just to mention them, as is evident just in this place alone. The problem is, that misconception goes much further than just this board. I doubt many will take the impact of this on board, but it seemed appropriate to try at least. Addressing issues of chronic abuse and neglect, for the present at least, is addressed with a big stick approach by and large. That is, or at least, appears to be a failing of the way we do community at the moment. The fact that people need to be employed to be mandatory reporters and professional child protection workers is a damning indictment on how we do community. The harsh reality is, obviously, that the professional child protection industry is also going to get it wrong at times. Protecting our children needs to be a whole of community approach. We may also need to rethink this "ownership" of our children idea, people get very upset when their parenting practices are questioned, challenged or outright rejected...The old I will raise my children my way comes out. It is erroneous thinking, they're not your children, you are their carer/parent...

1. You're a nutter.

2. You have no idea about having kids...do you?

3. My kids ARE INDEED MY KIDS. They belong to me (and my husband of course)....they're certainly not yours or anyone else's.

4. Your definitions of abuse and neglect are just that. Your definitions are in essence your opinions. And opinions are like ar$eholes, everyone has one.

When I was growing up in the 60's and 70's after school we would go home eat and then most kids would go to the park to play cricket, footy or soccer.

On weekends we would spend most of the day light hours at the park, summer time with t-shirt and shorts.

And although we may have gone a bit red at the end of the day, it was nothing like now where 1/2 to 1 hour will turn you into a beetroot.

Back then sun screen was un heard of, youngsters at the beach put coconut oil on to tan.

gizmo_2655 wrote on Nov 6^th, 2015 at 2:02pm:

Phemanderac wrote on Nov 6th, 2015 at 1:20pm: So, since there is a bit of chatter going on about PANOC (Physical Abuse and Neglect of Children) it seems that it might be worth making a few points clear. There is more than a little misinformation getting thrown about (not to mention some very disreputable reframing of information)... So, if you ever suffered sunburn as a child growing up, welcome to experiencing neglect first hand. By definition, failure to provide protection against harm constitutes neglect... Absolute BULLSHIT...getting sunburned as a child simply increases your immunity to further sunburns... like playing in the dirt increases your immunity to germs (despite the numerous stupid commercials for Dettol Handwash products)

Getting sunburnt as a child increases your risk of skin cancers in later life.

Ajax wrote on Nov 6^th, 2015 at 2:19pm:

When I was growing up in the 60's and 70's after school we would go home eat and then most kids would go to the park to play cricket, footy or soccer. On weekends we would spend most of the day light hours at the park, summer time with t-shirt and shorts. And although we may have gone a bit red at the end of the day, it was nothing like now where 1/2 to 1 hour will turn you into a beetroot. Back then sun screen was un heard of, youngsters at the beach put coconut oil on to tan.

Same in the 80's. I was out riding my bike or horse-riding all day. I never burned. I burn now though.

I put my kids in long sleeves and hats. I never wore them growing up.

gizmo_2655 wrote on Nov 6^th, 2015 at 2:02pm:

Phemanderac wrote on Nov 6th, 2015 at 1:20pm: So, since there is a bit of chatter going on about PANOC (Physical Abuse and Neglect of Children) it seems that it might be worth making a few points clear. There is more than a little misinformation getting thrown about (not to mention some very disreputable reframing of information)... So, if you ever suffered sunburn as a child growing up, welcome to experiencing neglect first hand. By definition, failure to provide protection against harm constitutes neglect... Absolute BULLSHIT...getting sunburned as a child simply increases your immunity to further sunburns... like playing in the dirt increases your immunity to germs (despite the numerous stupid commercials for Dettol Handwash products)

Yep.

Gizmo.

She has no kids...just dogs.

She has no idea....no freaking idea.

I'm pretty sure her post is a bait.

Just ignore and post over I reckon.

It's too stupid to contemplate any further.

mothra wrote on Nov 6^th, 2015 at 1:54pm:

I would not consider a parent reprimanding a child while at a heightened emotional level abuse.

Yep, I understand you might not consider it that, but, by definition it is... The reality for most they do not consider it abuse - the problem is that the word itself is demonised...

It just happens, we do reprimand our kids, that's part of life and at times our reprimand most certainly crosses the lines of abuse and neglect - but we get over it. It is not Chronic.

There are also a myriad of behaviour management techniques now days that work very well without the need for fear of punitive reprisals... Lots of people try to apply them most of the time.

No one gets it right all the time because apart from caring for, protecting and teaching our kids we are also working out how to pay bills, feed families, fix broken taps, get cars in for oil changes, deal with sicknesses and or injuries, worry about what politicians will do to us next and somehow find some time for ourselves as well.

Kids and raising them is just one more complexity in our complex lives.

In a perfect world all kids would be the top priority all of the time, clearly we are in a far from perfect world though.

The definitions are ok still, accepting them is the challenge.

The words are not of themselves demonic, they describe a type of behaviour - the impacts of those behaviours can be widely variable though. New workers and long term poorly supervised jaded workers in Child Protection see abuse in every action, at some level they're right, however, it is not of a serious nature or all that frequent.


mothra wrote on Nov 6^th, 2015 at 1:54pm:

Abuse is the intent to cause harm, or at least lack of due care.

No it isn't, abuse is about improper treatment, at times that might include intent, however, there are times when the person simply does not know any better.

"I was teaching them a lesson..." Whilst this might be a genuine position for an abuser to take, it also signals they have simply not considered the harm part, ergo their intent is not to cause harm...

Lack of due care is neglect.


mothra wrote on Nov 6^th, 2015 at 1:54pm:

Do you think a religious upbringing causes harm?

It can have the potential to is about as far as I would go. Clearly and demonstrably a religious upbringing does not repeatedly or consistently cause harm at any significant level (how much emotional harm might have been caused would be an interesting study).

I am fairly certain that even without further research, religious upbringing has caused harm to some.

However, this religious upbringing idea... So we are telling our children a bunch of mythological stories, some of which are potentially disturbing. The ultimate overseer/s of said stories are generally omnipotent, all knowing entities that have the power to cause them eternal suffering, harm and misery if they don't obey a set of rules they don't yet fully know or understand?

Tell me that's not just a bit abusive.

Before you answer though, try not to make the word abuse demonic in it's meaning...

gizmo_2655 wrote on Nov 6^th, 2015 at 2:02pm:

Phemanderac wrote on Nov 6th, 2015 at 1:20pm: So, since there is a bit of chatter going on about PANOC (Physical Abuse and Neglect of Children) it seems that it might be worth making a few points clear. There is more than a little misinformation getting thrown about (not to mention some very disreputable reframing of information)... So, if you ever suffered sunburn as a child growing up, welcome to experiencing neglect first hand. By definition, failure to provide protection against harm constitutes neglect... Absolute BULLSHIT...getting sunburned as a child simply increases your immunity to further sunburns... like playing in the dirt increases your immunity to germs (despite the numerous stupid commercials for Dettol Handwash products)

Sorry mate, it's not bullshit at all. It's the working definition of Physical Abuse and Neglect of Children in child protection...

The point is, and I would ask you to read more of my OP is that neglect and abuse are two words that have been demonised over time... They're simply behaviour descriptions and, if the abuse and or neglect is sever enough then that is an issue.

The current frame work talks about significant risk of serious harm....At least in NSW.

Think about that in terms now of the words abuse and neglect not being demonic... I lived at the beach almost literally as kid, so sunburn was a part of my adolescents despite my parents best efforts...

This is why kids are not generally removed from families over issues of sunburn, yep it actually is neglect, cause that happens - sometimes our kids promote it (as my above personal example demonstrates)...

I gave my daughter an unfair whack on the arse when she was very young because she went to run on a road and a car was coming... I got a fright and lost my poo...And hit her, harder than I ever intended. She wasn't injured, but she was afraid to cross roads for a while, as in, totally afraid to. So much so, I took just a bit of time with her and taught her how she needed to cross roads safely and for the moment she needed to be with one of her parents to cross...

Teaching worked better than the smack. Yep, I abused her by smacking her. Did it cause harm, yep, but very minimal and easily addressed...

Clearly the lesson worked because she is now a young adult who is quite skilled with crossing roads safely  ;D

It's not a big deal to own our behaviour, in fact, if more people did, the serious perpetrators of significant abuse and neglect would quite possibly have a much harder time hiding it.

mothra wrote on Nov 6^th, 2015 at 2:22pm:

Ajax wrote on Nov 6th, 2015 at 2:19pm: When I was growing up in the 60's and 70's after school we would go home eat and then most kids would go to the park to play cricket, footy or soccer. On weekends we would spend most of the day light hours at the park, summer time with t-shirt and shorts. And although we may have gone a bit red at the end of the day, it was nothing like now where 1/2 to 1 hour will turn you into a beetroot. Back then sun screen was un heard of, youngsters at the beach put coconut oil on to tan. Same in the 80's. I was out riding my bike or horse-riding all day. I never burned. I burn now though. I put my kids in long sleeves and hats. I never wore them growing up.

My personal opinion is when the British did al those nuclear tests in the middle of Australia in the 1950's they blew a hole in the ozone.

And now we are seeing the effects.

Lisa Jones wrote on Nov 6^th, 2015 at 2:17pm:

Phemanderac wrote on Nov 6th, 2015 at 1:20pm: So, since there is a bit of chatter going on about PANOC (Physical Abuse and Neglect of Children) it seems that it might be worth making a few points clear. There is more than a little misinformation getting thrown about (not to mention some very disreputable reframing of information)... So, if you ever suffered sunburn as a child growing up, welcome to experiencing neglect first hand. By definition, failure to provide protection against harm constitutes neglect... I have made the point more than once (to deaf ears, or perhaps in this context blind eyes) that issues pertaining to neglect and abuse become far more serious if they're chronic. As such, whilst a case of sunburn absolutely constitutes neglect, it would only be chronic if it were sever and happened often... Same goes pretty much for most (not all because some forms of abuse particularly are immediately threatening to long term well being) forms of abuse and neglect. To bring this into some perspective relevant to this board, I have made the comment that I agree that religious education is a form of child abuse.. I have also qualified this that it is not chronic per se. That is an opinion only, based on knowledge of how these terms apply. The pitfall for many is that, over time and largely thanks once again to our sensationalising (if that isn't a word I am claiming inventors rights...) mass media these two words, abuse and neglect, have been demonised where it is the ultimate sin just to mention them, as is evident just in this place alone. The problem is, that misconception goes much further than just this board. I doubt many will take the impact of this on board, but it seemed appropriate to try at least. Addressing issues of chronic abuse and neglect, for the present at least, is addressed with a big stick approach by and large. That is, or at least, appears to be a failing of the way we do community at the moment. The fact that people need to be employed to be mandatory reporters and professional child protection workers is a damning indictment on how we do community. The harsh reality is, obviously, that the professional child protection industry is also going to get it wrong at times. Protecting our children needs to be a whole of community approach. We may also need to rethink this "ownership" of our children idea, people get very upset when their parenting practices are questioned, challenged or outright rejected...The old I will raise my children my way comes out. It is erroneous thinking, they're not your children, you are their carer/parent... 1. You're a nutter. 2. You have no idea about having kids...do you? 3. My kids ARE INDEED MY KIDS. They belong to me (and my husband of course)....they're certainly not yours or anyone else's. 4. Your definitions of abuse and neglect are just that. Your definitions are in essence your opinions. And opinions are like ar$eholes, everyone has one.

Yes, I bristled at that "they're not your children" passage too.  We don't need to "rethink" that at all. 

... wrote on Nov 6^th, 2015 at 2:40pm:

Lisa Jones wrote on Nov 6th, 2015 at 2:17pm: Phemanderac wrote on Nov 6th, 2015 at 1:20pm: So, since there is a bit of chatter going on about PANOC (Physical Abuse and Neglect of Children) it seems that it might be worth making a few points clear. There is more than a little misinformation getting thrown about (not to mention some very disreputable reframing of information)... So, if you ever suffered sunburn as a child growing up, welcome to experiencing neglect first hand. By definition, failure to provide protection against harm constitutes neglect... I have made the point more than once (to deaf ears, or perhaps in this context blind eyes) that issues pertaining to neglect and abuse become far more serious if they're chronic. As such, whilst a case of sunburn absolutely constitutes neglect, it would only be chronic if it were sever and happened often... Same goes pretty much for most (not all because some forms of abuse particularly are immediately threatening to long term well being) forms of abuse and neglect. To bring this into some perspective relevant to this board, I have made the comment that I agree that religious education is a form of child abuse.. I have also qualified this that it is not chronic per se. That is an opinion only, based on knowledge of how these terms apply. The pitfall for many is that, over time and largely thanks once again to our sensationalising (if that isn't a word I am claiming inventors rights...) mass media these two words, abuse and neglect, have been demonised where it is the ultimate sin just to mention them, as is evident just in this place alone. The problem is, that misconception goes much further than just this board. I doubt many will take the impact of this on board, but it seemed appropriate to try at least. Addressing issues of chronic abuse and neglect, for the present at least, is addressed with a big stick approach by and large. That is, or at least, appears to be a failing of the way we do community at the moment. The fact that people need to be employed to be mandatory reporters and professional child protection workers is a damning indictment on how we do community. The harsh reality is, obviously, that the professional child protection industry is also going to get it wrong at times. Protecting our children needs to be a whole of community approach. We may also need to rethink this "ownership" of our children idea, people get very upset when their parenting practices are questioned, challenged or outright rejected...The old I will raise my children my way comes out. It is erroneous thinking, they're not your children, you are their carer/parent... 1. You're a nutter. 2. You have no idea about having kids...do you? 3. My kids ARE INDEED MY KIDS. They belong to me (and my husband of course)....they're certainly not yours or anyone else's. 4. Your definitions of abuse and neglect are just that. Your definitions are in essence your opinions. And opinions are like ar$eholes, everyone has one. Yes, I bristled at that "they're not your children" passage too.  We don't need to "rethink" that at all.

I still can't believe the cr@p she's posted..

Oh and nowwwww all of a sudden....after only ever having dogs....she's read my post...and has hurried back in here suddenly remembering that she has a human child.

A human child ...not a dog this time...a child she freely admits that she's physically assaulted.

Now put all her posts together and tell me, what further proof of her insanity do you need?

Jesus Lisa your on line persona is that of a slug, a slow lazy uncoordinated grub...

If this is anything like your real life persona I am not surprised your mother abused you...

... wrote on Nov 6^th, 2015 at 2:40pm:

Yes, I bristled at that "they're not your children" passage too.

You are as entitled to bristle as I am to make the claim, of course, the complete claim was , they're not your children, you are their carer....

Now if that still makes you bristle, then one has to wonder about how much responsibility you take for caring and protecting these children you apparently own.

Phemanderac wrote on Nov 6^th, 2015 at 4:16pm:

... wrote on Nov 6th, 2015 at 2:40pm: Yes, I bristled at that "they're not your children" passage too. You are as entitled to bristle as I am to make the claim, of course, the complete claim was , they're not your children, you are their carer.... Now if that still makes you bristle, then one has to wonder about how much responsibility you take for caring and protecting these children you apparently own.

Look who's talking? A  revolting self confessed child abuser!

Phemanderac wrote on Nov 6^th, 2015 at 4:14pm:

Jesus Lisa your on line persona is that of a slug, a slow lazy uncoordinated grub... If this is anything like your real life persona I am not surprised your mother abused you...

What a revolting sad and sorry excuse for a human being you must be.

Oh and let's not forget that you're a self confessed child abuser too. Pffft!

Lisa Jones wrote on Nov 6^th, 2015 at 4:47pm:

Phemanderac wrote on Nov 6th, 2015 at 4:16pm: ... wrote on Nov 6th, 2015 at 2:40pm: Yes, I bristled at that "they're not your children" passage too. You are as entitled to bristle as I am to make the claim, of course, the complete claim was , they're not your children, you are their carer.... Now if that still makes you bristle, then one has to wonder about how much responsibility you take for caring and protecting these children you apparently own. Look who's talking? A  revolting self confessed child abuser!

Self confessed child abuser?

... this should be good.

Ex Dame Pansi wrote on Nov 6^th, 2015 at 2:22pm:

gizmo_2655 wrote on Nov 6th, 2015 at 2:02pm: Phemanderac wrote on Nov 6th, 2015 at 1:20pm: So, since there is a bit of chatter going on about PANOC (Physical Abuse and Neglect of Children) it seems that it might be worth making a few points clear. There is more than a little misinformation getting thrown about (not to mention some very disreputable reframing of information)... So, if you ever suffered sunburn as a child growing up, welcome to experiencing neglect first hand. By definition, failure to provide protection against harm constitutes neglect... Absolute BULLSHIT...getting sunburned as a child simply increases your immunity to further sunburns... like playing in the dirt increases your immunity to germs (despite the numerous stupid commercials for Dettol Handwash products) Getting sunburnt as a child increases your risk of skin cancers in later life.

Rubbish..I, and all my friends/family got sunburned on a regular basis as children/teens...and, 40 years later, I don't have any form of skin cancer, nor do any of my family or friends..

Phemanderac wrote on Nov 6^th, 2015 at 1:20pm:

So, if you ever suffered sunburn as a child growing up, welcome to experiencing neglect first hand. By definition, failure to provide protection against harm constitutes neglect.

So it was neglect before even knowing that sunburn may cause cancer?

So that if staring at a computer screen is shown to cause serious harm, sometime in the future, that then will also be neglect? Or of course anything a child is allowed to do now, that may be shown to cause harm in the future, of which we currently know nothing?