Yesterday in Medford, Oregon a high school freshman shot another high school man four times. After that he threatened to take his own life, but was finally persuaded by the police to give up the gun.
Why intervene? Let the kid kill himself. His extremely anti-social behavior and desire to commit suicide are signs from "mother nature" that something has gone awry in the gene pool or in the nurtuing process - likely both - and that she is trying to correct it. Is there something other than the Christian belief in reformation and redemption that would motivate, I wager, the majority of Americans to save the kid from himself? If you were a member of a small village or tribe, why would you want such a person around? In addition to the very good social reason why you wouldn't, there's a good biological reason too: children tend to come out like their parents in both genetic and behavior ways. The risk of psychotic behavior being passed on is increased through dyfunctional brain chemistry and abusive parenting.
Ah, but is it really too late to save him, after all he's still so young! From a legal and social standpoint I suppose he is young. But from a developmental one, I think that by the age of 14 the damage is probably irreparable, and I know there is plenty of evidence demonstrating that a messed up a kid leads to a messed up adult and that psychiatric/behavioral/religious intervention will be at best palliative.
23 February 2006
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)