Doing this to a child is wrong

[fuckxmas]

BBC report : His said his 14-year-old daughter had not left her bedroom for four days, with meals being left outside her door, until the family learned the result was void on Thursday

This is so wrong to do to a child

@CorvusPurpureus no to english specialist but big yes to Antonia Forest

It is fine to limit a young person’s freedom for their own safety. Not to remove it altogether. One is good parenting. The other isn’t
I know you're either stupid or insane and most likely both but with nothing better to do I can't help but take the bait. How is insisting they staying in their room at night not completely removing their freedom? It is literally exactly the same thing. In fact we generally remove FAR MORE freedom since not only are they imprisoned in solitary confinement at night time we also insist they don't watch movies and heaven forbid actually stay in their bed. Their freedom is far more restricted. By the way newsflash risking the health of other family members, especially in a way the teenager is likely to feel resposinsible for is not good parenting.

I agree with the main of the responses to date. Without context, we have no idea what is reasonable. And I would think that the child DOES have access to a bathroom, although not specifically mentioned.

When I was 14 years old, I'd have GLORIED in being left alone in my room for 14 days, let alone 4, with meals delivered, no matter what the reason.

No, I’ve not lost all sanity. One of my household is shielding and Covid has to be taken seriously. I took the same precautions as I do at work (I work in A&E as a nurse so plenty of Covid patients there too) and made sure my family were cared for. Do you think these precautions are insane in hospitals with Covid patients? Or just in homes with covid patients?

How is insisting they staying in their room at night not completely removing their freedom? It is literally exactly the same thing

No, it’s not. It is a temporary restriction for the child’s benefit, like a car seat. It is not a removal of essential liberty (being locked up for days at a time). And if you can’t see ths difference and all you can do is throw insults, it’s probably the end of our conversation.

What is your definition of 'temporary', @flaviaritt?

In an expected lifespan of 85 years is 4 days temporary?

mathanxiety

It’s not just a question of that definition. It’s a question, too, of the legitimacy of the action.

In my opinion, a child having relative freedom during the day and the freedom of their home at night for their own safety isn’t illegitimate imprisonment. It’s just parenting. You’re giving them every freedom you can, consistent with keeping them safe and meeting your legal responsibilities. And it’s better for the child. No rational person could say it was fine to have 12 year olds wandering the streets at midnight.

Restricting someone to one room for days at a time for your own benefit is illegitimate imprisonment. It’s not for them, it’s for you, and it isn’t giving them all the liberty you reasonably can. It’s detrimental to them.

You can argue “it’s the same thing”, but then, I asked a question based on that fault premise earlier in this debate and nobody took it up: if two weeks’ imprisonment is okay, why not a year? This is the same as they, except I do have an answer - overnight restrictions on a child’s freedom are proportionate to their age and needs, and are in place for their own good.

But (unlike a 4 year old) a 14 year old does have views, opinions and needs beyond just being kept safe and happy day-to-day. They are conscious of their need for freedom. They are conscious of their right to autonomy, even if that right isn’t fully developed yet because they are still under our care. And as parents it is our job not to abuse our authority over them (although we do still have authority).

@flaviaritt
They are also rational and sometimes it cheers them to know that their parents respect that vitally important element of their budding personalities too.

Some of them are so rational that they don't smoke, drink, or have sex. They behave well in school, do their homework, help around the house, get along well with siblings and parents, and understand that covid is a highly contagious virus capable of killing their nearest and dearest.

They are well capable of understanding that a temporary sacrifice of the company of their family might be needed in order to make sure everyone makes it through the pandemic.

They are also rational and sometimes it cheers them to know that their parents respect that vitally important element of their budding personalities too.

You’re ignoring a key component of my argument: if they agree, it’s obviously not imprisonment.

This is a question about what needs to happen if they do not agree.

@flaviaritt
Restricting someone to one room for days at a time for your own benefit is illegitimate imprisonment. It’s not for them, it’s for you, and it isn’t giving them all the liberty you reasonably can. It’s detrimental to them

It is actually giving them 'all the liberty you reasonably can'.

Or maybe you are now going to claim that the definition of 'reasonably' is beside the point?

mathanxiety

No, it’s not. We are all taking certain risks, going into work, going to the supermarket, using amenities that are open, because we understand that the risks are proportionate to the needs we are fulfilling by doing those things.

We make those decisions in our own interests and we are allowed to do so.

Deciding that a 14 year old has no rights beyond being able to exercise in their bedroom isn’t giving them all the freedom you reasonably can.

As I have said above, you could have different people using different rooms at different times. Or those who are particularly worried could keep to their rooms instead.

This is removing the liberty of a child to conquer your own fears. It is not reasonable.

Or those who are particularly worried could keep to their rooms instead

Like a 14 year old, worried about passing on a virus to another member of their family perhaps?

And I do think the definition of ‘reasonably’ is the absolutely crucial thing here.

Surely we can all agree on two premises:

1. It is sometimes necessary to restrict a child’s liberty.
2. As parents, we don’t have authority to restrict a child’s liberty absolutely.

So it does become a question of legitimate reasons and ‘reasonable’ extent.

I would like to know, from all those advocating this approach, what they would do if, after the first week of imprisonment in their room, their child came out and went back to school, and there was another exposure. Back to their room? How many times is that acceptable? How long is acceptable?

There is a person on this thread who admits to having confined her kids to their rooms for quite a lot more than 4 days (but won’t actually say how long it was). Those defending that should take a long hard look at themselves. It’s wrong.

Like a 14 year old, worried about passing on a virus to another member of their family perhaps?

Wish there was a little picture for “cloth-eared”.

You’re ignoring a key component of my argument: if they agree, it’s obviously not imprisonment.
@flaviaritt
And it seems you are ignoring a key component of the facts here.

if two weeks’ imprisonment is okay, why not a year? This is the same as they, except I do have an answer - overnight restrictions on a child’s freedom are proportionate to their age and needs, and are in place for their own good.
If overnight imprisonment is ok, why not four days? What constitutes 'temporary'?

And 'in place for their own good'?
Your posts here are 100% subjective, not based on any overarching principle of freedom. Your approach is contradictory and inconsistent. You think freedom is the most important value, except when freedom to choose involves choosing something contrary to your wishes. Then it's a case of, 'I am dictating this because it's in your best interests'.

...proportionate to their age and needs...
You are asserting that a 14 year old only has a need for freedom. I am asserting that a teenager has a need to make an important contribution to family wellbeing, to demonstrate responsibility, to be trusted with a significant endeavour.
This is what the Duke of Edinburgh awards are all about, after all. Schools reward such maturity with all sorts of accolades.

If overnight imprisonment is ok, why not four days? What constitutes 'temporary'?

Because they do have their freedom during the day. The limitation is not absolute.

But yes, I know it is subjective. I have acknowledged that many, many times on this thread. Every discussion of this nature is (by its nature) subjective.

Nobody on the thread has any more of an ‘objective’ take on this than I do so 🤷🏻‍♀️

You are asserting that a 14 year old only has a need for freedom.

No, I am not. Why do people persist in stuffing up their own arguments by inventing mine?

1) It is sometimes necessary to restrict a child’s liberty.
2) As parents, we don’t have authority to restrict a child’s liberty absolutely.

Can we come back to that word 'temporary' then?

In an expected lifespan (barring an untimely departure thanks to covid) what is four days?

You think freedom is the most important value, except when freedom to choose involves choosing something contrary to your wishes. Then it's a case of, 'I am dictating this because it's in your best interests'.

Nor have I said freedom is more important than everything and anything else. It is a balance, but the overarching principles are the rights of the individual (and we do have a right to liberty) and the safety of the child (which is the parent’s legal responsibility).

mathanxiety

Perhaps before we come back to that word, you can reply to something I asked you earlier: what should happen if the child does not agree?

@flaviaritt

Like a 14 year old, worried about passing on a virus to another member of their family perhaps?

Wish there was a little picture for “cloth-eared”.

So does a 14 year old have the freedom to choose to self-isolate in their room or not?

So does a 14 year old have the freedom to choose to self-isolate in their room or not?

Obviously they do. So what?

Deciding that a 14 year old has no rights beyond being able to exercise in their bedroom isn’t giving them all the freedom you reasonably can.

There is that insistence on freedom before all other values which you deny is part of your argument here...

You need to explain the unreasonableness of this 'imprisonment' to me. In your answer, please discuss why the teenager can't just stay in school in the first place. Why can't people just stay in school at close quarters with others, inhaling and exhaling the same air, using the same loos, singing together in a choir, knocking into each other playing hockey, etc?

Your alternative of allowing the possibly infected teenager the full run of the house while those feeling nervous about contracting a potentially deadly virus should stay in their rooms is unreasonable to the point of being bonkers.

Are you asserting that people afraid of contracting a deadly virus through prolonged contact with a potentially infected individual in an enclosed space that is not ventilated to the degree required in the context of covid are unreasonably fearful?

It seems to me that these people are actually being completely rational. They have understood the proven science of covid transmission and have weighed the risks just as people going for brief trips to the supermarket have, in masks and latex gloves, armed with hand sanitiser, who are avoiding pubs and restaurants, and congregating in churches, cinemas, etc.

1) It is sometimes necessary to restrict a child’s liberty.
2) As parents, we don’t have authority to restrict a child’s liberty absolutely.

There is that insistence on freedom before all other values which you deny is part of your argument here...

Liberty is a weird word in a British context. It's very much a clarion call of the American loony right.

There is that insistence on freedom before all other values which you deny is part of your argument here...

I have categorically not insisted on freedom before all other values. I have asserted that freedom can be reasonably restricted to keep the child safe. Logically, therefore, the safety of the child is my first priority. No?

You need to explain the unreasonableness of this 'imprisonment' to me. In your answer, please discuss why the teenager can't just stay in school in the first place. Why can't people just stay in school at close quarters with others, inhaling and exhaling the same air, using the same loos, singing together in a choir, knocking into each other playing hockey, etc?

I don’t need to explain why keeping a person confined to one room is wrong. If you can’t see why it’s wrong, you clearly have some alarming tendencies.

Your alternative of allowing the possibly infected teenager the full run of the house while those feeling nervous about contracting a potentially deadly virus should stay in their rooms is unreasonable to the point of being bonkers.

So it is not incumbent on people to do what they can to protect themselves before confining young dependents? Really? And you think I am the “bonkers” one?

So I will ask you again: what should happen if the child (quite reasonably, IMO) says they will follow the law and remain in the house, but they are not prepared to be confined to their room, and would prefer a space-sharing arrangement or for the frightened person to self-isolate instead?

@flaviaritt
Perhaps before we come back to that word, you can reply to something I asked you earlier: what should happen if the child does not agree?

If the child doesn't agree then you send them to their room anyway. It's obvious that the child who can't agree to something this important isn't mature enough to be allowed to make up his or her own mind on this important topic.

Same goes for a 14 year old insisting on going to the park on weekend nights to swig cider with her friends.

The proof that the child isn't mature enough to be allowed to make this decision herself is her insistence that she should be allowed to do it and that the parent is unreasonable to forbid it.