I had to read this article for my DLP Social Problems class. Below is my reaction I posted to the discussion board. I have never been super interested in the Foster program until this year when I started meeting with foster families through the agency. Foster parents who really care about their children are really special people. To be able to care for these children then give them up when they are adopted or ready to go back to their own parents or live on their own etc. I don't know if I could do it. Read the article if you're interested. Is there anything we can do about it?

Foster children

Focus is so often on the unborn children who need a voice, that those who have their own voice but not the power to use it correctly are often overlooked and mistreated as a result. This article made me horrified at the way people are beginning to see humanity. Foster children do not seem to have any more rights than the unborn in the world's eyes. These children are being tested which often leads to more pain until death may take them. This seems almost a bit more harsh and cruel than abortion, and yet people hardly take a stand to defend these children.
The article stated that several hospitals and groups who used foster children as their guinea pigs sought the consent of the children, the foster parents, and sometimes even the biological parents. This would seem to make the situation a little more "fair". But when the children in question are ages 5-10 and the "treatment" appeals to them because it promises to "make them better" and "make their pain go away", then why wouldn't they consent to undergo these tests? Children at such young ages do not understand medicine, except that the term "medicine" usually has a positive connotation. They would never dream that these doctors would hurt them or try new drugs on them to see the results. I am 20 years old and I still have difficulty knowing what is necessary when my doctors tell me it "would be wise" to have this procedure done etc. Thankfully, my father, who is also a doctor, has always been there to guide me through what is really necessary, what could potentially hurt me, and what is just "boo-hockey" made up by crook docs who are out to grow old in the Hamptons. These foster children do not have the luxury of a father who will protect them and have their best interests at heart.
While some of this research does seem to have positive outcomes, the main issue here is unrepresented children. Each time a foster child is considered to be entered into a program with this strong of intensity, or even milder programs, an advocate should be consulted for the child. This advocate should follow the child through the entire course of the program or should always be sure someone is fairly representing them if the child should be moved out of the area. This advocate should have the child's best interests in mind and should clearly explain all the possible benefits AND risks associated with the treatment plan they are entering. The child should then be allowed to make their decision with this unbiased opinion. This advocate should be given the authority to stop treatment if the methods are acting out of the child's interest. The advocate should be there to stand up for the child when necessary and protect the child from "scientific explorations". This advocate should be the parent this child is not blessed to have.
Children are today's tomorrow. If the world continues to shun children and disregard their importance then what will the world be like 20 years from now? What will these children learn? How will they treat the children in their time? What will the population of earth as a whole look like if we continue to test new drugs and medicines on children?