Call for Help/ This American Life (Merged)

[oldragbaggers]

Originally Posted by Andrew B.

I beg to differ I believe it sums up rather well what over %90 of this tread
has been about.

To much RH did the right thing, but...

There are no "buts...." RH did what he wanted to do for his family, which was his right, and as I stated very clearly (many times in many posts) I am not judging him for it. I am very sorry that things did not work out for him and his family. I wish with all my heart they had arrived at their destination safely and we were not having this discussion at all. I wish him, Charlotte and the girls only the best and hope they recover from this and give it another go.

I was only stating the choice I would make for my own family and why. As far as it translating to "never leaving the dock" that's just a gross overstatement and that's why I felt your comment wasn't relevant to what I was saying.

My comment related to a very small percentage of cruisers, i.e. those that have small children and those with small children that intend to take them on long offshore voyages. My guess is that cruisers that fit into that demographic are not the majority by a very long shot.

And, as I have said previously, I am very much in favor of cruising with children. I personally would just wait until they were big enough to fend for themselves a little more before I took them on a long blue-water passage.

And by the way, frankly I think the the dead-horse head-banging thing is a little overdone.

[Andrew B.]

My initial comment was my take on the thread as a whole.
Not your comments.
I liked you comments, at least until now. Your hyper-sensitivity
read something that just wasn't there. I didn't quote anything from
anyone's comments about anything specific in the post you decided to slam.

But you did protest something exCalif didn't say.
I believe I knew where you stand on sailing with children
before your last defensive comments.

The extra verbiage wasn't needed. At least by me.

And me thinks thou protest to much...

[cheoah]

Is that what that thing is???

I thought yellow peanut m&m dude was trying to beat the candy out of the other end of a piñata.

Have to agree with you but I don't really notice the beating dead horse one much. head banger dude really irritates me. At times I've wondered if emoticons like this will one day dictate our emotional responses to dialogue, rather than illustrate it? Will animated gifs (or whatever that beastly red turd nibbler thing is) one day be a part of our socialization, and because of constant exposure to the b.r.t.n., we actually begin to relate minor frustrations to beating our heads against a wall?

Oh no, now I'm hyper aware of all the emoticons. There everywhere around this text box. I had just blanked them out, didn't even notice the ones on the bottom. Who uses those?????

And now, back to your regularly scheduled bickering and banter...

ya'll keep it sweet.

[Andrew B.]

Originally Posted by cheoah

Is that what that thing is???

I thought yellow peanut m&m dude was trying to beat the candy out of the other end of a piñata.
............................................
........................................
ya'll keep it sweet.

Yeah me too.

I rarely use Smilies, but at times they are a all to easy to use shorthand.

[Jim Cate]

Seems to me that one very good way to keep your children from suffering from childhood diseases is... take them offshore! Most of those ailments are contagious... one needs to be exposed to someone else who has the disease in order to come down with it.

So, if one leaves a populous anchorage and seeks seclusion for a week or so before departure on a long passage, most childhood disease will manifest itself and appropriate action can be taken. After that quarantine period, it is unlikely that any of the many childhood infectious diseases will appear in your children.

This does not preclude problems, such as trauma, hereditary issues, lingering after affects from previous illness (possibly the case with the child in question), but addresses a previous post concerned with the myriad illnesses common to children.

Cheers,

Jim

[letsgetsailing3]

Originally Posted by Ex-Calif

I sorta figured this would get some pushback - Yes. In a post about 1/3 the way through this thread one of our doctor members cited a debilitating disease that causes death in children. He stated that 1 in 3,000 kids will get this disease and need intervention in the first 5 years of life. He said with 2 kids that's a 1 in 1500 probability of getting the disease.


So back to point - Take your kids cruising. It's not child abuse.

You deserved some pushback, as you threw out an out-of-context statistic to back up a general conclusion.

There's nothing wrong with taking kids cruising, as long as the responsible party has the sense not to kid themself about the fact that there are risks involved. It's not even about actuarial tables, it's about the risk to the particular kids involved, the particular trip planned, and the experience of the adults involved.

[akmagnolia]

For full disclosure, I am not a member of the sailing community. I read about the rescue on the news and the story captured my attention in a way few are capable of doing. I have had rudimentary training in operational risk management at work, and as the mother of a college age son who nearly died before his first birthday from a medical emergency, I felt I could relate to the concept of being willing to trade everything you own to keep your child alive.

I recognize I do not know enough about the lifestyle to understand real vs. perceived risks and I've tried to keep an open mind about the issues involved, but like everyone, my perceptions are filtered thorugh my own experiences and biases.

In my case, my son had a mild runny nose on a Saturday morning and was on IV antibotics for a septic infection by Sunday mid-day. If I'd had to describe the sypmtoms that prompted me to carry him to the emergency room over the phone, I probably would not have been able to articulate clearly the reasons why my instincts were telling me to get medical attention at the ER rather than wait for the pediatrician's office hours a day later.

As it happened, when I arrived in the ER, my son was taken immediately from my arms to an examining room. In short order the doctor performed a lumbar puncture and diagnosed him as having a septic infection which probably originated as a secondary bacterial sinus infection. He spent a week in the hospital receiving IV antibiotics.

I was stunned at the speed he deteriorated, and based on this one incident, I do not think anyone could convince me to cruise offshore with children under five. He was otherwise perfectly healthy when this happened. His treating physician told me if I had waited longer to bring him in, he most likely would have died.

I do not believe rescue costs should be passed on the the people who are rescued, but I do think the cruising community would benefit from an in-depth analysis of the real risks of cruising with children and how those risks can be mitigated. I would not limit this analysis to situations requiring evacuation and the scuttling of a family home; I believe we can learn much from near misses as well.

I also believe cruising families can fall for the same biases in executive decision-making that everyone tends to make in evaluating risk. I understand several families with small children had successful Pacific crossings within the last year without incident. I know several families who transported children in cars at high speed on interstate highways without incident as well, but that doesn't mean it isn't without risk, or that they don't need to use car seats. I'm not satisfied anyone has rigorously studied the risks of cruising with children, and without this, no one can really say they understand the real risks or whether those risks are worth it.

I believe the youngest member of the Rebel Heart was also the member at greatest risk for injury while getting the least benefit from the trip. This is more disconcerning for me than the cost of the rescue.

I haven't made up my mind on whether I believe additional regulations for offshore travel with small children are necessary for vessels similar to the Rebel Heart.

[Ex-Calif]

Originally Posted by letsgetsailing3

You deserved some pushback, as you threw out an out-of-context statistic to back up a general conclusion.

<snip>

That's a nice jazzy sentence but is completely wrong. My math is not in error. The probability is infinitesimally small of getting that disease on a 28 day passage - that is and was my only point for the statistic.

It is completely in context of the doctor's post stating that a 1 in 1500 frequency of this disease over 5 years was presented as a reason not to take kids cruising.

My conclusion was not general - It is very specific. The doctor's fact (1 in 1500) doesn't not back up his conclusion that taking kids cruising is overly risky.

Originally Posted by akmagnolia

For full disclosure, I am not a member of the sailing community.

<snip>


I haven't made up my mind on whether I believe additional regulations for offshore travel with small children are necessary for vessels similar to the Rebel Heart.

First of all I don't know you and you don't know me but you joined in so here we go.

You are a self professed non-boater - You saw a news story and decided to have a look around (I guess) and now you have formed some opinions about children cruising.

Please understand there is one thing - thousands of kids are cruising - they aren't dropping like flies - it's not unsafe.

And in this rare instance where a child (could have been any crew BTW) needed to be lifted off, thank God there was a country that could and did send help. It's what we pay for. In 1900 the poor child would probably be toast.

But your last sentence quite frankly annoys me. Additional regulations? Please. It's not your business if I put my kids on a boat and go sailing. Why should I abbrogate my parental role to you and heaven forbid any elected official who is only reactive to the news cycle and no real studies or facts.

Go worry about tree zoning in your neighborhood. Leave me alone.

Sorry if I am a little cranked up. I take it seriously when people start infringing on my liberties.

[Scottuk]

I take it seriously when people start infringing on my liberties.

Yeah, liberties and freedum and all that. There is also reponsibility and in the case at hand this is applicable when government services are brought to bear but I guess your liberty takes precedence over her liberty to try to mitigate resource allocation she in part funds. I think it is a perverse way of using liberty to take away liberty from others. Sadly, this appears the way of the world now a days.

[Ex-Calif]

Originally Posted by Scottuk

Yeah, liberties and freedum and all that. There is also reponsibility and in the case at hand this is applicable when government services are brought to bear but I guess your liberty takes precedence over her liberty to try to mitigate resource allocation she in part funds. I think it is a perverse way of using liberty to take away liberty from others. Sadly, this appears the way of the world now a days.

This same argument -her cost my liberty is being held in forums all over the internet all the time, every day.

We as a society have SAR - done. The rules are that I get in trouble, I press the happy button and the C130 shows up. If you don't like having SAR eliminate it.

If you want a list of who gets SAR and who doesn't, good luck.

"Before I send the C130 I have one question. Are you a dumbass?"

As far as who contributes and who doesn't that is also a red herring in my book. I pay north of $100k in federal taxes each year. I live in Singapore so my US footprint is pretty small. Yes I am concerned how it is spent but I don't begrudge a dime of it.

However when I press the happy button a Gold Darned C130 better show up...

[Scottuk]

We as a society have SAR - done. The rules are that I get in trouble, I press the happy button and the C130 shows up. If you don't like having SAR eliminate it.

It appears, in this instance, yours is an either/or dualistic approach. For me, and it seems for others, it is not, hence the activity on forums. To me it is all about personal responsibility. I think this would go a long way to forestall regulation. However, in general, this is not the case so as a society I think a line needs to be drawn somewhere. Where that line falls is open to debate.

[SVNeko]

Originally Posted by Ex-Calif

We as a society have SAR - done. The rules are that I get in trouble, I press the happy button and the C130 shows up. If you don't like having SAR eliminate it.

Its not as simple as that. Search and rescue assets and funding are based on an assumed level of need. If these needs go unreasonably high, perhaps due to unreasonable risk-taking by cruisers, you can bet that precious SAR resource will be curtailed or go away, whether you want it to or not, or the actions of cruisers will be regulated. You act like its an unlimited natural resource, and its not. Either way, overuse will lead to curtailment of liberties.

[Ex-Calif]

Originally Posted by Scottuk

Where that line falls is open to debate.

I prefer a grey area - I get that resources are limited. Democracy is messy.

We have a messy system so we can all debate funding and decide where the resources are applied.

There are many more "risky" undertakings that use our resources that can be addressed before the drop in the bucket that is currently "private citizen-cruiser rescue" needs a red pen.

Originally Posted by SVNeko

Its not as simple as that. Search and rescue assets and funding are based on an assumed level of need. If these needs go unreasonably high, perhaps due to unreasonable risk-taking by cruisers, you can bet that precious SAR resource will be curtailed or go away, whether you want it to or not, or the actions of cruisers will be regulated. You act like its an unlimited natural resource, and its not. Either way, overuse will lead to curtailment of liberties.

Public finds are used in all kinds of pursuits that I have no interest in - EMTs stand by at rodeos, motorcycle hill climbing events, Nascar races.

If we want the grey Orwelian masses to work their 9-5 factory job, park their kids strapped into a safety chair on the couch surrounded by pillows in front of the Cruising and Sailing X-box game so that little mary's biggest risk is getting fat on hot dogs and big gulps at her weekly trip to the Nascar track followed by diabetes and a heart attack at 45 - you guys have at it.

I'll take my boy on my boat, expose him to rope burns, skin cancer, drowning, boom bangers, wet deck slips and falls, fish hook snags, filet knife nicks and my galley cooking - he might die but he might survive - no one gets out of here alive anyway...

There are plenty of boating regs already - I live with them and agree with them. There are common sense preparations to take etc. I don't say do away with any of that.

In the context of "taking babies cruising" is going to bankrupt the SAR budget and we need to ban or regulate it - I can't get there from here.

BTW - What is US coastal authority? 20 miles? After that US federal rules be damned anyway if someone wants to be a scofflaw. Just don't call SAR until you are 20 out - LOL.

PS - Excuse my "flip" attitude. I know this is a serious topic but I don't enjoy the seriousness at the extreme ends. I think we often make tempests in our teapots and I do overuse the colorful exaggeration at the other end of the spectrum quite a bit.

Peace - but I'm glad I can still choose to take my kid boating.

[Scottuk]

We have a messy system so we can all debate funding and decide where the resources are applied.

I'm afraid that debate would likely include some regulation. As an example look at NZ and their Cat. 1 requirements. They assess both the boat and the sailors. I am doubtful they would have allowed RH to go offshore given the issues with the boat and their limited experience in the context of taking very youg children. The regulations were enacted because of limited funds to service the large area NZ covers.

There are many more "risky" undertakings that use our resources that can be addressed before the drop in the bucket that is currently "private citizen-cruiser rescue" needs a red pen.

Don't think prioritisation has relevancy to the issue.

Public finds are used in all kinds of pursuits that I have no interest in - EMTs stand by at rodeos, motorcycle hill climbing events, Nascar races.

I think people might become more concerned if young children were included in these activities.

If we want the grey Orwelian masses to work their 9-5 factory job, park their kids strapped into a safety chair on the couch surrounded by pillows in front of the Cruising and Sailing X-box game so that little mary's biggest risk is getting fat on hot dogs and big gulps at her weekly trip to the Nascar track followed by diabetes and a heart attack at 45 - you guys have at it.

I don't think giving an unrelated extreme example adds merit to you argument.

There are plenty of boating regs already - I live with them and agree with them. There are common sense preparations to take etc. I don't say do away with any of that.

The problem is when 'common sense' is not all that common and so becomes regulated.

In the context of "taking babies cruising" is going to bankrupt the SAR budget and we need to ban or regulate it - I can't get there from here

You appear to have your extreme view while stating the opposite extreme view but it seems a lot of people are somewhere in between.

[S/V Alchemy]

I can assume one thing in this rather scattershot debate: If the skippers of Rebel Heart decide to go cruising again, barring a lottery win or their story getting turned into a movie, their children will be significantly older by the time they can rebuild their stack of boat chips.

Thus rendering at least part of the debate moot.