The Sailing Kaufmans. Make that the Sinking Kaufmans. The Stupid Kaufmans?
Last month, I wrote about the burglar who brought his infant offspring along with him on a job, which is to say, a burglary. It is fair to say, and thus I am saying, that San Diego parents Eric and Charlotte Kaufman, presumably known as “The Sailing Kaufmans” in honor of “The Biking Vogels,” make that burglar look like the Huxtables from “The Cosby Show.”
Oh, they are loving parents I’m sure, just like the doting professionals played by Bill Cosby and Felcia Rashad in the iconic sitcom. The problem is that they don’t have the sense bestowed by nature on the average adult lemur. Mom and Dad Kaufman brought their 1-year-old daughter Lyra and her 3-year-old sister, Cora along with them as they embarked in March on the great adventure of sailing across the Pacific as the first leg of a planned circumnavigation of the globe.
In a 36-foot sailboat.
Alone.
With a toddler.
And an infant.
Morons.
I will add to this completely reasonable description the additional labels of irresponsible parents and dangerously self-obsessed child abusers. I would say the same if the great adventure were completely successful and they got their pictures on the cover of People, US, or “Incompetent Parenting Monthly.” It wasn’t, but that doesn’t matter, nor is it critical to my verdict that the children are still alive and well. Taking them on this inherently perilous journey was far more dangerous than what Nehemiah Gonzalez, the burglar who couldn’t find child care, did, and far less defensible than the six years of indentured servitude on bicycles that the world-trekking Vogels inflicted on their young boys. Child services removed Gonzalez’s infant daughter from his tender care, and I’d like to hear one good reason why the same protective actions shouldn’t be undertaken on behalf of Lyra and Cora. The odds of them making it to adolescence are not good, if this is how the Kaufmans treat their kids.
This time, at least, the children were rescued, but it took a Navy warship, courtesy of your taxes and mine, to do it. Little Lyra developed a fever and a rash was circumnavigating her body, and her parents had run out of ideas for treating it. The Kaufmans issued a satellite call for help to the U.S. Coast Guard after their sailboat, Rebel Heart. lost its steering and radio about 900 miles southwest of Cabo San Lucas, Mexico. Would the fever have been sufficient to alarm the Kaufmans if the sailboat was still functioning? Who knows, with these geniuses. Their thought processes are a mystery.
So four California Air National Guard members had to parachute into the ocean to rescue the family and its sick child. The rescuers treated the baby, then put the family on an inflatable boat that took them to the USS Vandegrift. It was a great adventure, though neither child will remember it, just like they wouldn’t remember the successful world tour if it had happened.
The shameless parents issued this jaw-dropping statement from the ship:
“We understand there are those who question our decision to sail with our family, but please know that this is how our family has lived for seven years, and when we departed on this journey more than a year ago, we were then and remain today confident that we prepared as well as any sailing crew could. The ocean is one of the greatest forces of nature, and it always has the potential to overcome those who live on or near it. We are proud of our choices and our preparation.”
Translation: “If we aren’t stopped, we will keep doing this kind of thing until we get our kids killed, and we’re proud of it. Yes, we are insane. Please help us, because we can’t be trusted with sharp objects, much less children and 36-foot sailboats.”
At least the children have some sensible relatives. Wait, scratch that. Charlotte Kaufman’s sister, Sariah Kay English, told reporters that when she first learned of the trip, she “thought it was nuts.” But, she said, the couple was always “careful.” “They were not going into this blind. I knew they were doing this wisely,” English said. So idiocy runs in the family on the mother’s side, then. Bulletin to Aunt Sariah: Taking infants and toddlers on 36-foot sailboat trips around the world is neither “careful.” nor “wise.” The words you were looking for are “unbelievably irresponsible,” “criminally reckless” or perhaps “stupid beyond description.” The words you should have uttered to your sister and her husband were these: “I’ll take care of the kids, or if you insist on taking them on this dangerous trip, I’m calling the police, the news media and child services. Your choice.”
There is no way to be “careful” when it comes to proper regard for children that young on an ocean-going sailboat. No degree of care will guarantee against rogue waves, the Perfect Storm, pirates, hungry Krakens, illnesses, accidents and mechanical failure. It is irresponsible, indeed bats, to put children in situations where professional medical attention will be unavailable for protracted periods, and every sensible, caring parents with sufficient intelligence to put their shoes on the correct feet knows this. Sailing around the world on a sailboat with young children is infinitely more dangerous than taking a child along on a burglary, and a rescue is likely to be a lot more expensive, too.
The Kaufman children belong in protective services until their parents get some common sense drilled into their heads. The Navy should send a bill for expenses to the couple, and insist on payment. That should keep them out of sailboats for a while, since the Rebel Heart sank, and at least give their children a chance to grow old enough, like Abby Sunderland, the intrepid 16-year-old amateur sailor whose parents thought was fine to send off on her own trip around the world, to enjoy the adventure that might kill them.
________________________
Pointer: Fark
Facts: AP
Ethics Alarms 
“The Navy should send a bill for expenses to the couple, and insist on payment.”
Absolutely my first thought as well. They have the swag to figuratively jet around the world for years on end.
They should be expected to retire the sum total of the bill for having their lard pulled out of harm’s way, into which they boldly and freely.
Care to lay odds that they have deep pockets & short fingers?
Please; no Reality Show, whiney benefit/fundraising effort, or tearful Oprah appearances.
Does the Navy still do hangings from the yardarm?
The proper procedure for that may be found in Clifford Ashley’s Book of Knots.
Does it also reference keel hauling?
News you can use…
Coincidentally, I am currently reading a book called *A Storm Too Soon* which is about three guys who decide to cross the Atlantic on the Sean Seamour II and wind up battered by 60 to 80 foot waves. These guys were experienced sailors but still had to abandon their boat and barely survived a perilous rescue by the Coast Guard in a life raft which capsized several times. I think any parents that would take a 1 and 3 year old on a voyage of the type you describe are showing incredible stupidity. They should be billed for the full cost of the rescue. Narcissism rears its ugly head again!
I am a fan of billing people as a general rule for rescues from situations they put themselves into.
I’m sure you can see the problems with that, though. Refusal to rescue indigent idiots, for example. Lawsuits and court cases over what constitutes “putting yourself in peril.”
Much as happens with medical care, there would be charities and the like that would help with cost, and the government could always means-test the rate of required reimbursement.
texagg04;
Gotta go along with Mr. Marshall here.
Imagine the tsunami of lawsuits brought by recovering Liberals after seeing the results of their voting democrat.
I could see a pretty strong case being made for putting oneself unintentionally in peril, convincingly pleading ignorance because it seemed like a good idea at them time.
Initially I thought this was just about parents who took their kids out for a couple of days of sailing. With those conditions, I would agree that the parents didn’t really do anything terribly wrong (assuming they were experienced sailors and were well familiar with that specific boat) – even a couple of days would be fairly basic and simple (and likely close to land).
But trying to cross the Pacific?
Morons. Fucking, fucking morons. I rarely support The State taking kids (when I say rarely, I mean I have fairly strict criteria). I think in this case I would picked government offices to make sure the kids got taken away.
And enforce the payment order at the end of a warship.
Good grief. I wonder what the Kaufmans know of the Lewis and Clark expedition. And, as is becoming my chronic curiosity about such foolish people, I wish I knew who the Kaufmans have voted for, if they vote.
I mean, they should have understood better about what is luck (or improbable success), and studied the L&C “journey,” as the couple calls their ridiculously reckless sailing, before venturing forth. At least Sacagawea happened along, with her infant fathered by the French trapper. At least she had some skills to help the expedition cope with the territory and people in it, with baby in tow. At least she had all the men and supplies of the Corps of Discovery on her team. At least her presence possibly warded off attacks.
It would have been more probable for the Kaufmans to have made it across the Pacific by suddenly finding themselves being escorted in the open ocean by an English-speaking, GPS-literate porpoise with a huge kit strapped on: Flipper, M.D.
The Kaufmans should have their kids taken away permanently, with no visitation allowance and no knowledge of their kids’ new home. They should never be issued driver’s licenses, let alone be allowed to operate any machine besides their own wheelchairs. (I would say they also should be spayed and neutered, but humanity has not yet so perfected social justice.)
I think there is one thing both parties can agree upon — too many idiots are having kids.
Idiocracy: The most depressingly prescient movie ever.
I would only qualify the general theme of the post and responses in one way: sometimes taking young children on such voyages is a lesser evil.
That’s not a hypothetical or at all academic. It is a close fit for the case of the Vietnamese boat people who headed to Australia some forty years ago, and it is the question of fact underlying the divide between preferred policy responses to today’s boat people heading to Australia (are they already safe from having reached other countries in other ways by the time they start on their ocean voyage, or not?).
Sure. If the family is fleeing an ebola outbreak or H.G. Welles’ Martian machines, or roving machete-wielding Rawandans, the sailboat is a better bet. No such menace threatened these children as far as I can tell.
The only threats to the safety of those kids are the ones who brought them on the damned boat…
Not academic, but just too obvious. Pretty much anything that you can say “a parent should not do this to a child” you can say “But what about blah?”
You should never throw your child out a window… but what if the building is on fire and you can’t get out the small window so you toss them down to some chance of safety?
You should never hit your child hard enough to break bones… but what if they need CPR and you’re cracking ribs?
You should never deny your child food when they are truly hungry… but what if they’re getting surgery the next day and need to have an empty stomach?
Yes, obviously, any dangerous thing has the potential to be less dangerous than the alternative. That’s so obvious that it goes without saying, I think.
Yes, that line of debate is an infuriating methodology if it doesn’t actually add anything to the discussion.
“… , but please know that this is how our family has lived for seven years, ….”
Wait. Wait. Hold up.
The children are how old again?
They’re one and three, you say?
Aaaaaaaaaaand nothing . . . NOTHING, you say now . . . in your life has changed in the way you live in the last . . . seven years?!?
Did someone, like, change mathematics around when I wasn’t looking?
Okay, seriously, I’m in complete agreement: Fucking, fucking morons.
–Dwayne
Yeah that one made me facepalm as well. The crazy thing is, people will likely defend that statement because sailing around the world is a big adventurous romantic thing. Just try being the parents who say “Well sure we stay up til 4am, have sex in every room in the house at all hours, and feed the kids nothing but pizza and beer because it’s all we keep on hand. It’s how we’ve been living for 7 years!”
Yeah seven years? What they carried diapers around for four years practice? Narcissistic nimrods. Before baby 1, you were a couple, not a family. You cannot be wild and crazy when you have small children, even self-centered performers usually get that and I am always anused to see the change in stars. And yes they should have to pay for the rescue if they can’t accept that they and children are too far from help. If you drive to the arctic circle, there are not people close to save you and you all could die. I would be more inclined to forgive the stupidity if they weren;t doubling down, instead of apologizing and show they realized it was a stupid idea.
Just having fun here BTF and out for a troll; please don’t think I am sneering at you: I do believe this is the first time I have seen a form of “anus” used as an adjective – to boot, used in a manner that suggests that a verb with the infinitive, “to anus,” exists. But I do agree: Watching narcissistic star performers change can be tirelessly anusing.
I just read the post on the Vogels. Wow. The comments were unbelievable. From there I found an article in which your post was mentioned. What struck me about the article was-
“She fired off pieces to the Washington Times, the online magazine Salon, and even talked on radio to try to silence her detractors.”(!) Were you silenced, Jack? 😉
http://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2010/jul/31/vogel-family-cycling-america
NO. And, of course, the Vogels’ child-exploiting ways were pretty much res ipsa loquitur, even though local media lapped it up. “Oh! Isn’t this neat! These cool parents kept their kids on the road with them eating out of tin cans and peddling bicycles all day for six years!” She may be deluded, which is the best spin anyone could put on her conduct.
Every time some new commenter here gets handed his hat, he or she googles me and tracks down hate pieces like Mrs. Vogel’s various rants. Then I get, “Well, now that I’ve seen how YOU are regarded…LOL!” I couldn’t be prouder of the list of my detractors, for the most part.
Confirmation bias at its most pathological….’Hey, these people are calling you names too, so I must be right, you are a bad person!’
Easier than thinking for themselves, easier than the pain of acknowledging that they just might be wrong. The phrase ‘ silence her detractors’ really jumped out at me. Not ‘address’ or even ‘confront’. More of the ‘ no contrary opinions allowed, and if you disagree with me just shut up!’ mindset. Unintelligent to say the least…
Well, this is a woman who thinks forcing her twin boys to live their lives on bicycles for six years is responsible child-rearing.
I’ve been banning debaters who start using links to other blogs that have flamed me for one reason or another. It’s the ultimate cheap shot and true ad hominem stuff. I don’t mind the flaming, but throwing someone else’s negative words at me is lazy and desperate. Moreover, it means that I have to keep seeing Nando’s name…
Oops, should I have not posted the link? I’m sorry!
“The Kaufmans should have their kids taken away permanently, with no visitation allowance and no knowledge of their kids’ new home. They should never be issued driver’s licenses, let alone be allowed to operate any machine besides their own wheelchairs. (I would say they also should be spayed and neutered, but humanity has not yet so perfected social justice.)”
Really? I agree that this was a questionable parenting decision but that quote is crazy talk. Maybe they have learned a valuable lesson and will make more conventional choices for their kids in the future. Or maybe not. Either way, what you are suggesting is tyrannical and completely illegal based on the facts of this story, ie no evidence of willfull neglect or abuse. You or I might not think it was a safe decision to take the kids on this crossing but neither are we highly experienced sailors like Mr Kauffman. Risk is relative. Also, their entire savings was tied up in the boat (their home) which they had to sink so I doubt they’ll be doing much sailing in the future, at least not for a long time.
As for making them pay for the cost of the rescue, that’s absurd. Our government maintains this capability in order to provide a service to its citizens. They are citizens and I assume they paid their taxes, so they’ve already paid for the rescue. Also, I guarantee this rescue was a highlight of many of those military members’ careers, certainly the Air Guard PJs who want nothing more than to be used for real world rescue missions. As a former special operations medic I would have paid to be a part of an operation like this.
1. Damn right, “really.” How much more irresponsible do parents have to be for society to say: “You’re insane, and we won’t let you kill your children?” We remove children from parents, properly and responsibly, for far less. So these happen to be wealthy and white: so what? They are willing to blatantly put their kids at risk for recreation. I’d advocate the same for the “Biking Vogels.”
2. Rescues yes, insurance against reckless behavior, no. Making people like these pay for the tax-paid expense of their blatant disregard for life and common sense is one good way to get fools to think twice. This wasn’t a misfortune or natural disaster: this was a suicide mission.
Do you also think they should have no access to the kids ever again, never be allowed to drive a car and be neutered?
And actually it was a misfortune: they called the Coast Guard because their child was sick and not getting better with the treatment prescribed by their doctor. It would be the same if they were in the middle of nowhere for a camping trip.
Yes, and taking a sick infant in the middle of nowhere for a camping trip—or into outer space, or on an Everest climb—is the equivalent of child abuse.
These parents are unapologetic, and would obviously do this again. How many times should we pay for it, and allow the child to be endangered, before it is signature significance demonstrating hopelessly, dangerously, self-involved negligent parents? An infinite number? Ten? Until the kid dies—there, I bet that’s your call, right?
Mine is ONE.
I don’t think this meets the definition of child endangerment and obviously neither does the government. I think a much bigger problem is people who leave loaded guns within a child’s reach or drive without properly using a car seat. But even in those cases I don’t think those parents should be forcibly sterilized or permanently removed from their children. Seems to me that is an “ethics alarm”.
Who said anything about “forcibly sterilized”? There’s the Straw Man of the Year. Then you master the rationalization of “It’s not the worst thing!” And finally, the appeal to authority: a rhetorical fallacy! You’re goooood. You should go into politics.
In case you couldn’t read that last comment, it was: See my original quote from a comment on your site. You said you agreed with them being neutered, is that not forced sterilization?
My mistake, triggered by you. You quoted a tongue in cheek comment by another commenter that was obviously hyperbole. I wasn’t the one who said it. See my post? The following was what my prescription was, to wit: “The Kaufman children belong in protective services until their parents get some common sense drilled into their heads. The Navy should send a bill for expenses to the couple, and insist on payment. That should keep them out of sailboats for a while, since the Rebel Heart sank, and at least give their children a chance to grow old enough, like Abby Sunderland, the intrepid 16-year-old amateur sailor whose parents thought was fine to send off on her own trip around the world, to enjoy the adventure that might kill them.”
See anything about forced sterilization there? You addressed a straw man quote to me, using something I didn’t say. My “Really” referred to the part of the quote that was approximately what I did say: that the kids should be removed. Since the rest was not said seriously, and not by me, I didn’t address it. Sorry you didn’t understand.
It you want to avoid such confusions, 1) Learn the difference between a facetious comment and a serious one, and 2) If you want to reply to another commenter’s comment, identify the author. General comments not addressed to others I assume are directed to me.
I don’t think that quote was tongue in cheek, if it was that’s all I wanted from the poster–clarification–because if it wasn’t that’s scary.
You’re right, I didn’t mention that commenter’s name, I thought it was enough to quote them, if that meets your criteria for idiocy then I’m an idiot. It also means I wasn’t using a straw man argument because that quote is what I was arguing against, specifically the neutering part.
I actually had not read that part of your post mentioning Ms Sunderland, I find that quote pretty reasonable with the exception of the Navy sending the Kauffmans a bill, the absurdity of which we’ve already discussed.
I think you like to call people names and stir up the emotions of your readers so I hold you responsible for even tongue in cheek remarks about neutering people, that’s what moderation is for.
You actually believe that Eeyoure was advocating actual sterilization?
“I think you like to call people names and stir up the emotions of your readers so I hold you responsible for even tongue in cheek remarks about neutering people, that’s what moderation is for.”
That doesn’t even make any sense…’you like to call people names so I hold you responsible for others’ comments’…that is what you said, but it makes no sense. Are you a roving blog arbitrator?
I still don’t get people who come to a blog for the first time and go on the attack.
I am another person who thinks that the military, Coast Guard, and others should charge for rescue when the rescue is absolutely caused by the stupidity of those needing rescue; those that ignore weather alerts, avalanche warnings, are not qualified for what they are doing etc. Why shouldn’t they pay?
He’s really going to hate some of my comments…
Wait—you commented on the blog post without reading it? That’s irresponsible, and disrespectful. REad the damn post, then start asking “really?” Is that too much to ask?
I don’t “call people names.” When commenters act like jerks or fools, I point it out. Diagnosis is not “name-calling.” What’s your word for someone who comments critically on a blog post without reading it?
I commented on the comment and failed to make that clear. I read all but the last paragraph of your post because it seemed like you were just saying the same thing over and over again. That was lazy and showed my frustration with your line of argument, so I skipped to the comments to see if anybody else thought you were off base. Instead, I found the infamous tongue in cheek comment. So I would call someone like that lazy and frustrated, one word names like “idiot”, “moron”, and “fucker” are imprecise and inflammatory.
And yet when applied to you, they are amazingly accurate…
Except for fucker, which I never use here or elsewhere, they are marvelously descriptive, and in the right circumstance, indispensable.
Your explanation is disingenuous. I re-read the post to make sure: I am not above occasional over repetition. But following the exquisitely accurate description of “morons” for people who bring a sick infant on an endurance cruise on the ocean without medical resouces, the following paragraphs covered these topics:
1. Explaining the child abuse standards, and comparing this to a recent post regarding a burglar who took his child along on a heist. He lost custody of his kid. That called a “point.”
2. Noting the extent of effort and expense the rescue required. That’s called a different point. The paragraph also provided more details about the crisis.
3. More about the rescue, and the peril to the rescuers. Yet a different point. And more details.
4. Regarding: “The shameless parents this jaw-dropping statement”—again, another matter, noted and discussed.
5. My translation of same, for those, apparently like you, who thought their conduct was just swell. Again, not in the previous parts of the post.
6. The shocking stupidity of the relatives. Not the same point, as different irresponsible idiots were involved.
7. Yes, here I elaborated on why Aunt Sarah’s statement was outrageous, following onto the theme of the previous paragraph, and this was too repetitious to keep your interest. Sorry. It must be hard having a short attention span.
Then came the paragraph, the conclusion of the piece, which, like most essays, wraps up what the previous text attempted to show. Not reading this is 1) an insult 2) a guaranteed way to misconstrue any essay and 3) disqualifying for commentary, especially snotty commentary.
The paragraphs leading up to the conclusion were, in fact, distinct and not repetitious in any way. Saying that this was why you commented without reading to the end, therefore, either indicts your reading comprehension or your honesty. Take your pick.
“The paragraphs leading up to the conclusion were, in fact, distinct and not repetitious in any way. Saying that this was why you commented without reading to the end, therefore, either indicts your reading comprehension or your honesty. Take your pick.”
Actually you lost me at the “translation”, so that means I was wrong, I skipped the last three paragraphs. My bad. You had already established your opinion well and I happen to disagree. Remember I was not “really-ing” you.
But I too re-read your post and found some significant inaccuracies. First, the call for help that elicited the rescue was done via EPIRB, a one way distress beacon, rather than a sat call as you state. They had a sat phone which they used to call a doctor (same doc that gave Lyra a clean bill of health before they left) and also used to alert the CG that they were taking water but it was not a big problem. Second, they never lost steering. They could have continued on to their destination just fine had it not been for both Lyra’s condition and the loss of their sat phone. Third, you imply that they might not have requested rescue had it not been for Lyra’s condition because, “Their thought processes are a mystery.” Actually, they’re not. The Kauffmen (thanks Tex) gave an interview with NPR that appeared on This American Life. I’m gonna assume NPR is not on your list of favorites so I’ll forgive you for not listening. In that interview they thoroughly through their thought process. If you care about characterizing them correctly I suggest you look up the podcast. I’m sure it won’t change your opinion but you’ll see where some of your facts are wrong.
Finally, I’ll answer this: “I’d like to hear one good reason why the same protective actions [as were undertaken against the burgler] shouldn’t be undertaken on behalf of Lyra and Cora.”
In fact I’ll give you two:
1. Because, thankfully, this does not meet the criteria for CPS to remove kids from parents. You won’t like this because it appeals to the law rather than a higher ethical standard but it’s still a damn good reason why not.
2. Because to do it in this case would mean you’d have to do it in many, many other cases. It’s like Kant’s Chategorical Imperative: it is right only if it can be universally applied. The principle here would be that if children are intentionally put in potentially dangerous settings by their parents then they should be taken from their parents. I could cite a litany of examples, but I’ll settle for one: football. There is no doubt that football injures and even kills kids, it will probably soon be proven to cause significant brain damage, so do we take those kids away from their parents? I bet more kids died playing football than sailing last year, even if you control for the higher numbers in football.
1. Because, thankfully, this does not meet the criteria for CPS to remove kids from parents. You won’t like this because it appeals to the law rather than a higher ethical standard but it’s still a damn good reason why not.
Yup. Because its non responsive. “Why should we not sentence white cocaine users to the same sentences we sentence black crack users?” Because that’s the law? That’s a non -responsive answer in an ethics debate.
2. Because to do it in this case would mean you’d have to do it in many, many other cases. It’s like Kant’s Chategorical Imperative: it is right only if it can be universally applied. The principle here would be that if children are intentionally put in potentially dangerous settings by their parents then they should be taken from their parents. I could cite a litany of examples, but I’ll settle for one: football. There is no doubt that football injures and even kills kids, it will probably soon be proven to cause significant brain damage, so do we take those kids away from their parents? I bet more kids died playing football than sailing last year, even if you control for the higher numbers in football.
As children should be removed in many, many more situations. Read the burglar case, linked, and tell me how he endangered his child as much as these rich white sportsmen.
If you read the post and the comments, you would have known it was intentional hyperbole. The commenter is a regular here, and like all those who contribute substantively, he has earned privileges that do not automatically accrue to casual visitors.
Crella,
This is Mr Marshall’s blog and I assume he is the sole moderator so yes I hold him responsible for the posts here. His style is to call people names and use hyperbole to stir people’s emotions against actions that he finds ethically questionable. That’s fine, but if it were my blog I would have either deleted that comment about neutering the Kauffmans or at least commented on how it was in poor taste. This is a blog about ethics alarms, right? Even if it was tongue in cheek–and the social justice qualifier in it would suggest otherwise–it’s a horrible thing to say. I certainly hope you all weren’t arguing for sterilization but no one else said anything about that comment. That is the reason I went on the attack from the start, I searched for the Kauffmans and this was the third page that came up. Maybe that does make me a roving blog arbitrator, if that’s not what Mr Marshall wants on his blog he can remove my comments. I am personally suspect of any blog that has only supportive comments on it, especially one that has ethics in its title. I like arguing with people who have different views from mine, especially people like Mr Marshall who write well and take extreme stances.
As to your comment about the military and Coast Guard charging people for rescues caused by ignoring things like avalanche and storm warnings, I agree. In fact there is a precedent for that in the search and rescue community where, for example, people who don’t know how to rock climb ignore warnings against climbing cliffs without proper training and then have to be rescued from said cliffs. Despite what you and Mr Marshall think, taking their children to a place far from medical care was not the same thing, not in the eyes of most people and not in the eyes of the law. The Kauffmans did not ignore a storm warning and were very experienced sailors, they had medical training and a large supply of medicine, and they were in communication with a doctor until their sat phone company decided to change their sim card requirements. Their decision to take their kids away from prompt, higher level medical care was questionable, I would not have done it, but the rescue was necessary because of events out of their control and in spite of significant effort on their part to resolve it independently. The fact that it was a child makes no difference. Would you have said they should pay for the rescue if it were just the two of them and one of them had to be rescued in the same manner? I hope not because that’s the point of a rescue capability: to help people who are the victims of circumstances outside their control, ie a previously healthy person suddenly gets very sick.
If you walked into a group of people at a bar who know each other quite well and one of them pops off with something ridiculous like “almost as fun as pushing over grannies in wheel chairs” and no one in the group rebuked him… would you
A) assume everyone in the group knows each other and therefore must acknowledge his comment as tongue in cheek because they know the commenter
B) rebuke the commenter and the group for saying something like that?
Come on man, use some common sense. It would behoove you to do so. This blog has a solid group of regulars and a larger group of semi regulars. We know when we’re making tongue in cheek comments. That’s why no one got bent out of shape over Eeyoure’s comment.
But let’s stipulate that Eeyoure wasn’t tongue in cheek… absolutist and wild comments are actually VERY helpful in discussions on Ethics. I’ve seen people make wild assertions before and ultimately show how that hones a particular ethical evaluation whether or not the assertion is valid on its own. The extremes allow us to bracket the edges of what is acceptable.
If Jack moderated hardcore, we’d never explore the countless ethical / unethical options to discuss. You should be glad of this. On other blogs where moderation is even one or two notches more strict that Jack’s, discussion is stifled and it becomes an echo chamber of people either parroting the blogger’s mindset or people being allowed appropriately neutered opposition opinions.
Fair enough, that makes sense.
But to answer your question, whether or not I would speak up at the bar would depend on the reaction of the people in the group after the comment and how many drinks I’d had at that point.
It especially bothered me because this site was the first one I read on the subject and it’s called “ethics alarms”. This story also resonates with me because I’m a climber and sailor and hope to share both skills with my kids when they’re older, which certainly does not mean 1 and 3.
I apologize for ruffling any feathers.
You’ll enjoy it here.
No feathers ruffled, Pete. Seriously.
Then get your own blog, and fuck off from this happy place. Concern trolls are tiresome at best.
No maybe about it, bubba…
We Tend to police our own. The regulars have a fairly good handle on what is pedantic, asshole behavior, and we respond in kind.
Then go bug DailyKos, fucker.
Haha! No, Mr Jacobs, I think I’ll stick around just to piss you off. Do you have anything constructive to add to this discussion, or do you just want to curse and hurl insults? Foul language is for people who don’t have the verbal skills to confront an adversary any other way. It’s sad really, especially on an ethics blog.
I hope you have an otherwise wonderful day, sir.
Trust me, nancy-boy, this isn’t even remotely me at “pissed off”.
Don’t worry, you’ll know when I am.
“Despite what you and Mr Marshall think, taking their children to a place far from medical care was not the same thing, not in the eyes of most people and not in the eyes of the law.”
Both of which are 100% irrelevant to the question of whether it is right or not. Law is not ethics; and what is conventional wisdom is not ethical.
I think it is right to rescue someone if you can. I also think it is right to charge the people for that rescue if it was caused by their negligence, which in this case it was not. Maybe they were bad parents, I think they probably were for taking a 1 and 3 year old on a crossing, but they were not bad sailors or bad medics. Their parenting choices have nothing to do with the circumstances of the rescue, which is the only right way to decide if they should be charged for it. Should they have been charged if it was one of them that got sick and the kids were not there? If so then you have a problem with the rescue function of the Coast Guard (and the military). If not, then you are saying they should be charged for a function they otherwise would not be charged for just because they’re bad parents.
Jack,
To be fair, the Kaufmans (Kaufmen?) didn’t use leashes… I don’t think.
“As children should be removed in many, many more situations. Read the burglar case, linked, and tell me how he endangered his child as much as these rich white sportsmen.”
It seems like what you want is for kids to never be put in harm’s way and that’s just not realistic. Kids die by the thousands every year from car accidents but we still let them ride in cars. The reason the burglar’s kid was taken away is because he proved he has no respect for the difference between right and wrong and this makes him unfit to raise a child. The Kauffman’s choice was reckless, but what about it was ethically wrong or would demonstrate they they would not be able to properly raise their children?
You are just making this up. “Know the difference between right and wrong” has no place in the criteria for Child services you remove a child. A parent could be Satan, and if he took good care of the kid, the kid would stay put. The issue is, and is always, the safety and welfare of the children. You ducked the question, because you know the infant on the boat was placed in greater peril, and lack the integrity to admit it.
Greater peril based on what? The fact that something bad almost happened to the child? What about riding in cars? Something almost happens to a lot of kids in cars, sometimes when their parents are in places with no cell coverage or nearby hospitals. What about riding on airplanes? No hospitals at 40,000 ft and certain death if the plane crashes. But it usually doesn’t. It’s about the reasonable likelihood of harm. Show me the stats about all the people who have died at sea recently, I bet there aren’t many, even on Pacific crossings, especially with the type of boat, provisions and training the Kauffmen had. Were the kids exposed to more risk than if they had been sitting at home: yes. Was it a level of risk sufficient to say they were in greater danger than riding in a car on a snowy night in the Rockies: nope. Or maybe we should have CPS agents patrolling highways with child paddy wagons ready to save kids from the perils of the highways.
So why do you think they took the burglar’s kid away? Like most legal cases there is a great deal of discretion on the part of law enforcement. I suspect they did it in large part because they felt this guy had no business being a parent. It’s not in the law but I would say if that’s what happened that would be more ethically right than taking the Kauffman’s kids based on the potential harm their kids might be exposed to in the future.
You have to be joshing. OK, a show ofd hands: who thinks bringing a child along on a stunt sea voyage that is inherently dangerous is irresponsible? Ok, how about not merely a child, but a helpless infant? OK, how about a sick infant? A sick infant with no consideration of what would happen in the sickness worsened? How much more irresponsible with a child’s life can parents be? OK, grant, you it wasn’t a sick, bleeding infant…
I’m rushed, so I’ll leave it to you to identify the rationalizations you just used here. Gotta learn to avoid that…here.
And you can’t come down on me for citing the law in an ethical argument then do the same thing by using CPS guidelines to make your point. Come on Mr Marshall, you’re better than that.
I came down on you for relying on the law as authority to argue ethics. Can’t do that. I corrected your false characterization of the criteria whereby CPS is charged with removing children, and the ethical and moral orientation of the parents is in fact irrelevant. In that case, you were arguing ethics to describe the law. Trying to help you out, that’s all…
I also think CPS should be able to take Satan’s kid away.
Unethical. That’s pre-crime. There is no reason to presume Satan’s a bad parent. By that logic, you would also take away the children of racists, radical Muslims and Donald Sterling.
So you’re saying that raising a child in the midst of burning hellfire is less hazardous than raising them on a sailboat? I think hell is a tad more dangerous than the Pacific ocean.
Satan’s kid is fire-proof, as we all know.
“Who thinks bringing a child along on a stunt sea voyage that is inherently dangerous is irresponsible? Ok, how about not merely a child, but a helpless infant? OK, how about a sick infant? A sick infant with no consideration of what would happen in the sickness worsened?”
I do think it’s irresponsible but, as you pointed out, what we’re talking about is actual harm to the child. And, once again, your facts are wrong. Lyra was not sick when they left, she had been given a clean bill of health by her pediatrician who was also consulted during the voyage when she did get sick. They did exactly what the doc would have done which is give her amoxicillin. It didn’t work but they couldn’t ask the doc what to do next because of the problem with the sat phone sim card.
I get it, you think they acted irresponsibly, so do I! But not enough to actually do harm to the child and thus not enough to have their kids forcibly removed from their parents, something that also has been shown to be very harmful to kids, by the way. Sure, it would be great to be able to predict the future and know whether actual warm will come to the kids from their parents future decisions but, alas, technology has not caught up to you yet Mr Marshall. As you said, right now that would be pre-crime. I bet “Minority Report” is one of your favorite movies, right?
You also did not address how driving kids in cars, one of the leading causes of death for kids, is materially different from taking them on a crossing. I think you’re splitting hairs.
UGH…no, we are talking about putting a child in peril. Whether there is actual harm is purely moral luck. Look it up (on the site). While you’re at it, look up consequentialism. The act of taking the kid on the trip was the offense, and would have been the same if the child had recovered on the trip and arrived at the destination in the pink of health.