Heath Ledger death ruled "accidental"

[Bixby17]

As a society, I think we have become:

1. Too dependant on medications.
2. Many of those medications have not been well studied, and that the population is being experimented on.
3. That we don't know how a lot of these medications interact with each other.
4. And that large numbers of people think if something is prescribed, you can't really have a problem with it.
5. And that children are getting into these scripts because it is easy to do.
6. As a society, we would rather have a pill to fix something than to do things that are hard to fix stuff.
7. Doing things to your brain chemistry using medication without knowing exactly what will happen with that is a choice that should be made very carefully--I think more carefully than some people make that choice.

I do think that there is a place for medication, and I am very thankful for the advances in migraine medication, for example. But script abuse and our societies desire to over-medicate is a huge problem.

/minor rantage

I guess it just sounds better coming from you.

I think how you say something certainly affects the way people respond to what you say. Sometimes you say things in a way that is so black and white, that people take offense to it.

If I just said portion you highlighted, it would sound different than if you look at everything I said in context.

Also....

It helps that I didn't suggest a theory that successful people who die young from tragic circumstance do so due to poor parenting.

Or that I sounded dismissive of what clinical depression is and somehow equated it with being down in the dumps. And suggested that people just buck up.

It's obvious that good parenting can help prepare a child for the world and can help prepare them for both success and failure. But I don't believe the inverse is true, that if your children make irresponsible decisions, it is because you were a poor parent. Which is how what you wrote sounded, and what set off that whole bad discussion.

What you wrote and what I wrote are not the same, though you might agree with what I wrote.

[BackInTex]

What you wrote and what I wrote are not the same, though you might agree with what I wrote.

No, I think they are much the same, only I defined what "things" were in your "to do things that are hard to fix stuff".

I think part of our (society's) problem is too many don't want to offend others so we say things softly or not at all. Then when tragedy happens we just shake our heads and say "poor guy, somebody should have said something". Risking offending someone, especially if it is a friend, by getting out in the open things we'd much rather keep quiet about is one of those hard things.

Or maybe you meant "hard, but not too hard".

But I don't believe the inverse is true, that if your children make irresponsible decisions, it is because you were a poor parent.

"Poor" is relative and I wouldn't use that term in most cases. I think most parents are not "poor" parents, but if a child makes irresponsible decisions, at some point in that child's life the parent either by act or omission played a part (with certain exceptions such as sustained head trama that changed the mental capacity of the child after the parent has exited the child's life) in that decision.

That part may be compared to to a single misspelled word in a 150 page thesis, so the parent is still an A++ parent, but somehow, somewhere the parent impacted the decision to some extent.

[Bixby17]

What you wrote and what I wrote are not the same, though you might agree with what I wrote.

No, I think they are much the same, only I defined what "things" were in your "to do things that are hard to fix stuff".

I think part of our (society's) problem is too many don't want to offend others so we say things softly or not at all. Then when tragedy happens we just shake our heads and say "poor guy, somebody should have said something". Risking offending someone, especially if it is a friend, by getting out in the open things we'd much rather keep quiet about is one of those hard things.

Or maybe you meant "hard, but not too hard".

But I don't believe the inverse is true, that if your children make irresponsible decisions, it is because you were a poor parent.

"Poor" is relative and I wouldn't use that term in most cases. I think most parents are not "poor" parents, but if a child makes irresponsible decisions, at some point in that child's life the parent either by act or omission played a part (with certain exceptions such as sustained head trama that changed the mental capacity of the child after the parent has exited the child's life) in that decision.

That part may be compared to to a single misspelled word in a 150 page thesis, so the parent is still an A++ parent, but somehow, somewhere the parent impacted the decision to some extent.

I think it is quite possible to speak the truth on things without being impolite. I also think that if you speak from a place of empathy and just plain basic manners, you are more likely to be heard than if you come across as judgemental and speak "the truth" (as you see it) without regard to whether you offend.

I didn't discuss what "is hard" because a lot of times it is a case by case situation, and I don't care to speak in sweeping broad generalities in order to try to support a particular worldview thesis and without regard to whether what I am saying is applicable to everybody and everything.

As to your thesis about parenting, it makes me believe that you are the parent of young children. You believe that good parenting will stop irresponsible choices by young adults, and I believe that parents, like any humans can try their best, but there are so many other factors that control what a child does (their genetics, school, friends, being a unique human being, etc), that if you believe parenting fixes can prevent kids from doing stupid stuff, well, then, I don't think you have had enough life experience.

Yes, bad parenting, or imperfect parenting, or however you want to characterize it can have a profound effect on children's choices. But it is hubris and folly to suggest that perfect A++++++ parenting can prevent bad stuff from happening to your children as they grow up. That is the most scary thing about being a parent.

In some ways, your idea on parenting runs contrary to your beliefs about personal responsibility. You want to put blame on parents, but sometimes kids are just humans that learn through experience, good and bad.

[silvercamaro]

"The hard way" is Mother Nature's most effective teaching tool.

[Bob Juch]

"The hard way" is Mother Nature's most effective teaching tool.

I don't agree. There's too much collateral damage.

[BackInTex]

But it is hubris and folly to suggest that perfect A++++++ parenting can prevent bad stuff from happening to your children as they grow up.

There has never been and never will be a perfect parent. But it is folly to suggest that there is nothing the parents could have done differently to have changed something. Either by setting an example, giving the child just enough rope to learn from minor unimportant mistakes, to moving the family to a different city to force a change in friends the child hangs around with (I talked to people who have done this). I wouldn't say a parent who didn't take the radical action such as moving are poor parents, but if a child continued to associate with the wrong crowd and ends up getting in trouble or killed, that parent should understand that it was an option that they didn't take.

In some ways, your idea on parenting runs contrary to your beliefs about personal responsibility. You want to put blame on parents, but sometimes kids are just humans that learn through experience, good and bad.

No, responsibility can be shared. And it doesn't have to equal 100%. Someone can be 100% responsible for thier actions yet their parents also have some responsibility.

[themanintheseersuckersuit]

"The hard way" is Mother Nature's most effective teaching tool.

I don't agree. There's too much collateral damage.

I have to agree with SC because of how I understand the word effective. That comes from me explaining to clients that lawsuits are an effective way of resolving disputes, but can't be called efficient.

Remember, never ask for Justice, pray for mercy instead.

[Bixby17]

But it is hubris and folly to suggest that perfect A++++++ parenting can prevent bad stuff from happening to your children as they grow up.

There has never been and never will be a perfect parent. But it is folly to suggest that there is nothing the parents could have done differently to have changed something. Either by setting an example, giving the child just enough rope to learn from minor unimportant mistakes, to moving the family to a different city to force a change in friends the child hangs around with (I talked to people who have done this). I wouldn't say a parent who didn't take the radical action such as moving are poor parents, but if a child continued to associate with the wrong crowd and ends up getting in trouble or killed, that parent should understand that it was an option that they didn't take.

In some ways, your idea on parenting runs contrary to your beliefs about personal responsibility. You want to put blame on parents, but sometimes kids are just humans that learn through experience, good and bad.

No, responsibility can be shared. And it doesn't have to equal 100%. Someone can be 100% responsible for thier actions yet their parents also have some responsibility.

The problem is that parents aren't omniscient. They can do the best they can with the information and resources they have but sometimes the things you do to help someone out, even if it is the recommended approach, doesn't work. Or is counterproductive.

You can look back at things that you might have done different, like Monday morning parenting, but when you are raising and teaching your children, you never know for certain if the decisions you are making as you are making them are the right or wrong ones for your children.

Yeah, all of us can look at various things in our lives that we wish we could do differently. but that doesn't mean you are a bad parent, it just means that you can't foresee the future.

I look at things as a parent and remembering what it was like to be a kid. I was pretty much a teachers pet, straight arrow teenager, but had a few there-but-for-the-grace-of-God moments. Never had any big tragedies happen, but easily could have.

Because I was trying to figure out my place in the world. That's what kids do. And I was smart enough to do a lot of that unwise stuff in a way that my parents wouldn't have been able to have one clue at all.

[Beebs52]

But it is hubris and folly to suggest that perfect A++++++ parenting can prevent bad stuff from happening to your children as they grow up.

There has never been and never will be a perfect parent. But it is folly to suggest that there is nothing the parents could have done differently to have changed something. Either by setting an example, giving the child just enough rope to learn from minor unimportant mistakes, to moving the family to a different city to force a change in friends the child hangs around with (I talked to people who have done this). I wouldn't say a parent who didn't take the radical action such as moving are poor parents, but if a child continued to associate with the wrong crowd and ends up getting in trouble or killed, that parent should understand that it was an option that they didn't take.

In some ways, your idea on parenting runs contrary to your beliefs about personal responsibility. You want to put blame on parents, but sometimes kids are just humans that learn through experience, good and bad.

No, responsibility can be shared. And it doesn't have to equal 100%. Someone can be 100% responsible for thier actions yet their parents also have some responsibility.

The problem is that parents aren't omniscient. They can do the best they can with the information and resources they have but sometimes the things you do to help someone out, even if it is the recommended approach, doesn't work. Or is counterproductive.

You can look back at things that you might have done different, like Monday morning parenting, but when you are raising and teaching your children, you never know for certain if the decisions you are making as you are making them are the right or wrong ones for your children.

Yeah, all of us can look at various things in our lives that we wish we could do differently. but that doesn't mean you are a bad parent, it just means that you can't foresee the future.

I look at things as a parent and remembering what it was like to be a kid. I was pretty much a teachers pet, straight arrow teenager, but had a few there-but-for-the-grace-of-God moments. Never had any big tragedies happen, but easily could have.

Because I was trying to figure out my place in the world. That's what kids do. And I was smart enough to do a lot of that unwise stuff in a way that my parents wouldn't have been able to have one clue at all.

Wow. Bix has said it quite well.
I question those who think they're able to pinpoint what particular action it was, that was or wasn't taken, that "caused" a child to act out or perform badly or get into trouble. I agree that the heavily self-righteous statements about the power of perfect parenting are often made by those with younger kids, or newly born kids, or by those who are in denial about their own imperfections or the definition of imperfection itself.

It's very amusing at times.

[DevilKitty100]

There has never been and never will be a perfect parent. But it is folly to suggest that there is nothing the parents could have done differently to have changed something. Either by setting an example, giving the child just enough rope to learn from minor unimportant mistakes, to moving the family to a different city to force a change in friends the child hangs around with (I talked to people who have done this). I wouldn't say a parent who didn't take the radical action such as moving are poor parents, but if a child continued to associate with the wrong crowd and ends up getting in trouble or killed, that parent should understand that it was an option that they didn't take.

No, responsibility can be shared. And it doesn't have to equal 100%. Someone can be 100% responsible for thier actions yet their parents also have some responsibility.

The problem is that parents aren't omniscient. They can do the best they can with the information and resources they have but sometimes the things you do to help someone out, even if it is the recommended approach, doesn't work. Or is counterproductive.

You can look back at things that you might have done different, like Monday morning parenting, but when you are raising and teaching your children, you never know for certain if the decisions you are making as you are making them are the right or wrong ones for your children.

Yeah, all of us can look at various things in our lives that we wish we could do differently. but that doesn't mean you are a bad parent, it just means that you can't foresee the future.

I look at things as a parent and remembering what it was like to be a kid. I was pretty much a teachers pet, straight arrow teenager, but had a few there-but-for-the-grace-of-God moments. Never had any big tragedies happen, but easily could have.

Because I was trying to figure out my place in the world. That's what kids do. And I was smart enough to do a lot of that unwise stuff in a way that my parents wouldn't have been able to have one clue at all.

Wow. Bix has said it quite well.
I question those who think they're able to pinpoint what particular action it was, that was or wasn't taken, that "caused" a child to act out or perform badly or get into trouble. I agree that the heavily self-righteous statements about the power of perfect parenting are often made by those with younger kids, or newly born kids, or by those who are in denial about their own imperfections or the definition of imperfection itself.

It's very amusing at times.

If I'm reading BiT's logic correctly, good parenting guarantees good kids. And while I agree that good parenting is a swell idea, I just keep wondering where all those good kids came from that were, by all accounts, raised by wolves but overcame overwhelming odds to be good, productive citizens. Sure wasn't nurturing.

Yep, Beebs, I agree entirely that it's parents of infants and small children who most loudly espouse this. By the time your kids are teenagers, most of us were just grateful it's not our species characteristic to eat our young.

[BackInTex]

Wow. Bix has said it quite well.
I question those who think they're able to pinpoint what particular action it was, that was or wasn't taken, that "caused" a child to act out or perform badly or get into trouble. I agree that the heavily self-righteous statements about the power of perfect parenting are often made by those with younger kids, or newly born kids, or by those who are in denial about their own imperfections or the definition of imperfection itself.

It's very amusing at times.

Where did I say I could pinpoint a particular action that caused a particular result? Didn't!

Where have I made a self-righteous statement? Didn't!

I've never said I'm a perfect parent, haven't made mistakes, or that my kids will never go out and commit rape, murder, suicide, or wear white shoes past Labor Day. But if they do, I will take some of the blame.

I think the self-righteous comments are in the quote box above.

[BackInTex]

If I'm reading BiT's logic correctly, good parenting guarantees good kids. And while I agree that good parenting is a swell idea, I just keep wondering where all those good kids came from that were, by all accounts, raised by wolves but overcame overwhelming odds to be good, productive citizens. Sure wasn't nurturing.

Yep, Beebs, I agree entirely that it's parents of infants and small children who most loudly espouse this. By the time your kids are teenagers, most of us were just grateful it's not our species characteristic to eat our young.

No you are not reading my logic correctly.

I've never said good drivers will never have a wreck or that bad drivers will have a wreck. That would be inaccurate.

However, it would not be inaccurate to say that if a good driver has a wreck there was something that driver could have done to avoid it, even though the good driver was not driving badly at the time.

I know, you, Bix, and Beebs will bring up the 'what if a aging spy satellite falls from the sky right in front of you?'. Well then, shit happens.

[DevilKitty100]

Wow. Bix has said it quite well.
I question those who think they're able to pinpoint what particular action it was, that was or wasn't taken, that "caused" a child to act out or perform badly or get into trouble. I agree that the heavily self-righteous statements about the power of perfect parenting are often made by those with younger kids, or newly born kids, or by those who are in denial about their own imperfections or the definition of imperfection itself.

It's very amusing at times.

Where did I say I could pinpoint a particular action that caused a particular result? Didn't!

Where have I made a self-righteous statement? Didn't!

I've never said I'm a perfect parent, haven't made mistakes, or that my kids will never go out and commit rape, murder, suicide, or wear white shoes past Labor Day. But if they do, I will take some of the blame.

Man, not my mother! She'd tell me, "you little heffer, I didn't raise you that way, and you'd better not be telling people I did."

And for all the grief I caused her (back in the day), she was absolutely right........I was NOT raised that way.

Of course, we laugh about it now, but t'werent funny (back in the day.)

[VAdame]

I think the term 'abuse' implies intent. Not necessarily to die, though.

It's like someone thinking they can fly so they jump on a cliff. They didn't intend to die, but it certainly wasn't accidental that they jumped.

I would equate it more with driving too fast. Your intent is to get where you're going. Not to lose control of the car, not to crash, and not to kill yourself or someone else. It may be risky, it may even be none too smart. But it's certainly not delusional (like thinking one can fly & jumping off a cliff.) And probably 99 times out of 100 you'll get away with it and reach your destination with no harm done. After all, you've driven the route, at that speed, 100 times, you know every curve & bump, it's a chance you're willing to take.
And then there's that one time -- the one time an animal darts in front of you, you hit a spot that looks wet but is really black ice, another driver stops short in front of you, you cough, you sneeze, you're distracted by your phone ringing or something your passenger says...etc., etc., etc..........and you lose control & wreck your nice car. Maybe you die. Worse, maybe someone else dies. Are you responsible for what happened? Of course! But by no stretch of the imagination is it deliberate. That's why they're called "accidents!"

I didn't know Heath Ledger. I certainly don't know his parents, or his history. But it's entirely possible that he knew what sleep problems he was having, and thought he knew how much of whatever meds it would take to knock himself out for a few hours. Maybe it was the same combo he took 99 times before. And then there's that one time -- maybe he had a cold or a stomach virus. Maybe he took one extra pill. Maybe it was a new prescription and the dosage had been raised & he didn't realize it (that actually does happen, more than you know.) It could have been any one of hundreds of things that made this that one time he fell asleep and didn't wake up. Responsible? Sure. Accident? Yes!

About 10 years ago I was having frequent, horrible headaches. They came with a greenish aura, tunnel vision, & extreme sensitivity to sound. My mom has a history of migraines; my sisters have a history of migraines; mine must be migraines, right? They all take Imitrex with good results; ought to work for me, right? So, I come down with the headache one day at work, and a good friend lets me try her Imetrix. I went home sick at lunchtime & lay down to try to sleep off the headache, after taking Cathy's Imetrix. Well, I went to sleep all right! For about 20 minutes. Then I woke up in terror realizing I had stopped breathing! I don't know for how long. I was also aware that my heart rate had dropped (can't remember the actual number now, but it was pretty damn slow.) I forced myself to stay awake and called my husband. He came home from work a little early & sat & watched me until the effects of that damn pill wore off. I made the poor man watch me sleep and make sure I kept breathing!!! And wake me up every half-hour. BTW, -- it did get rid of the headache, but what a price to pay!

I finally went for a checkup & told my doctor about the headaches, & about my bizarre reaction to the Imetrix. She told me that drug can have side effects that mess with the heart in some patients (actually, I already knew that but never thought I'd be one of those patients!) She examined me & found out that my blood pressure was pretty dangerously high. So, she put me on the proper meds & got my blood pressure under control. And guess what? Those horrible headaches went from one or two a week to one or two a year! And I can tell you that no matter what kind of headaches I get, I'll never take an Imetrix again!

But if the worst had happened & I hadn't woken up, it would still have been an accident! Abuse? Well, yeah -- I took a medication prescribed for someone else, intending to cure a headache. Oh....my doctor also said she might have tried me on Imetrix for the infrequent migraines I still get, if we didn't already know that I have severe side effects! Now -- if I'd taken it as a prescribed medication, as directed, and suffered a fatal side effect -- I guess that would have been accident but no abuse. Same unfortunate outcome though!

to moving the family to a different city to force a change in friends the child hangs around with (I talked to people who have done this). I wouldn't say a parent who didn't take the radical action such as moving are poor parents, but if a child continued to associate with the wrong crowd and ends up getting in trouble or killed, that parent should understand that it was an option that they didn't take.

Do you truly not realize that you can find "the wrong crowd" just as easily on Park Avenue as on a park bench?????? If a kid is looking for trouble, it'll find him/her! The main difference is that the kids from Park Avenue have more $$$$$$ and get into a more expensive brand of trouble! And I don't just mean $$ or "the better neighborhood" or 'burbs vs. city or private school vs. public. I won't get into another long personal story, but I can assure you I did learn this from experience, as did my parents.

One thing I will say about sending your child to "a nice private (or a nice religious) school" to get them away from that proverbial "wrong crowd" --a goodly number of the other kids at that "nice school" are there for the same reason!!! Honey, we were the wrong crowd, and proud of it

And I was smart enough to do a lot of that unwise stuff in a way that my parents wouldn't have been able to have one clue at all.

LOL, I have a sister who was like that. She got up to way more stuff than I ever did, but was much more discreet. She was picked up several times for skipping school/underage drinking. Back then, it was just a fine, no real bad repercussions like loss of driving*. So, she marched on up to the local deli & got herself a job as a waitress. And got her older married sister (me!) to drive her up to the District Court to pay her fines. My parents were so proud of their smart enterprising daughter, going and getting a job to earn her own spending money! To this day, our mom doesn't know about all those fines she had to pay. Sis is paying for it now in Karma though; she has a pretty wild teenage daughter! And not a clue how to deal with the open rebellion (more my style back then), because her own rebellion was much more sneaky. BTW, about halfway thru her freshman year of college she slowed way down on the partying, and is now in her late 40s a very moderate drinker.

*One more short story -- I did a lot of my own underage drinking with kids from the School for Blind Children (my boyfriend's roommate was legally blind & a graduate of there.) I always wonder how the heck the state would punish them for underage drinking, if this were occurring today instead of 30-some years ago! Obviously, suspension of driving privileges would be out of the question!

ETA: I was probably in the process of writing this when BIT posted his good/bad drivers analogy. I did not see his post till I was finished. Great minds 'n' all that!

[Ritterskoop]

I didn't know Heath Ledger. I certainly don't know his parents, or his history. But it's entirely possible that he knew what sleep problems he was having, and thought he knew how much of whatever meds it would take to knock himself out for a few hours. Maybe it was the same combo he took 99 times before. And then there's that one time -- maybe he had a cold or a stomach virus. Maybe he took one extra pill. Maybe it was a new prescription and the dosage had been raised & he didn't realize it (that actually does happen, more than you know.) It could have been any one of hundreds of things that made this that one time he fell asleep and didn't wake up. Responsible? Sure. Accident? Yes!

He had pneumonia, and he had been taking sleeping aids since working on the Batman movie, which depressed him. I bet he was prescribed something that didn't sit well with his sleeping meds, which is why they call it an accident.

[VAdame]

I read about an interesting study last week, on whether "Parenting Classes" might make a difference in toddlers' behavior problems; i.e., temper tantrums. Took a little searching, but here's the article:

http://www.physorg.com/news121070647.html

The upshot was -- the "trained" parents were less likely to be abusive, and had somewhat more realistic expectations of their toddlers than parents who had no special counseling. But there was no difference between the 2 groups when it came to the behavior of the kids themselves!!!! Sample of 300 families, wealthy, middle-class, and poor, so-called "high-risk" and not. Kids who are gonna act out will do so. Kids who aren't, won't.

[BackInTex]

I read about an interesting study last week, on whether "Parenting Classes" might make a difference in toddlers' behavior problems; i.e., temper tantrums. Took a little searching, but here's the article:

http://www.physorg.com/news121070647.html

The upshot was -- the "trained" parents were less likely to be abusive, and had somewhat more realistic expectations of their toddlers than parents who had no special counseling. But there was no difference between the 2 groups when it came to the behavior of the kids themselves!!!! Sample of 300 families, wealthy, middle-class, and poor, so-called "high-risk" and not. Kids who are gonna act out will do so. Kids who aren't, won't.

That's a bullshit study. They say learning proper parenting techniques is a waste of time and money.

Here's thier recomendation:

"One approach is to deal with the problems as they emerge through counselling, drug treatment, or psychiatry."

Yep, take a pill. I wonder who sponsored that study? Hmmm... follow the money honey.


But for some, I guess that's what they want to hear. Open their wallets, open their mouths, and sigh a big relief from personal responsibility.

[Bob Juch]

He had pneumonia, and he had been taking sleeping aids since working on the Batman movie, which depressed him. I bet he was prescribed something that didn't sit well with his sleeping meds, which is why they call it an accident.

Actually they're saying he didn't have prescriptions for all of the drugs, if any.

[Bixby17]

I read about an interesting study last week, on whether "Parenting Classes" might make a difference in toddlers' behavior problems; i.e., temper tantrums. Took a little searching, but here's the article:

http://www.physorg.com/news121070647.html

The upshot was -- the "trained" parents were less likely to be abusive, and had somewhat more realistic expectations of their toddlers than parents who had no special counseling. But there was no difference between the 2 groups when it came to the behavior of the kids themselves!!!! Sample of 300 families, wealthy, middle-class, and poor, so-called "high-risk" and not. Kids who are gonna act out will do so. Kids who aren't, won't.

That's a bullshit study. They say learning proper parenting techniques is a waste of time and money.

Here's thier recomendation:

"One approach is to deal with the problems as they emerge through counselling, drug treatment, or psychiatry."

Yep, take a pill. I wonder who sponsored that study? Hmmm... follow the money honey.


But for some, I guess that's what they want to hear. Open their wallets, open their mouths, and sigh a big relief from personal responsibility.

Uh, BiT. That's not what the article said:

One approach is to deal with the problems as they emerge through counselling, drug treatment, or psychiatry. But this is expensive, and not always effective.

Another tack is to try to nip the problems in the bud by discouraging the kind of parenting that can lead to troubled behaviour, such as unduly harsh discipline and unrealistic expectations.

Drug treatment wasn't their recommendation. Nice selective quote.

They were just saying hey, how do we raise happier, healthier and more productive kids? Should we deal with problems as they happen (which is not always effective), and or should we try to prevent the problems by training parents on how to do better parenting. Let's tell you about a study that looked at the second option.

And all the article said was that at least with this early intervention program, there was no behavior differences between the kids of parents who went through that particular program and the untrained parents. They didn't say learning proper parenting techniques was a waste of time and money--they just said that the evidence from this particular program is insufficient to support the idea that that particular training changed children's behavior.

But hey, don't let the actual words of an article that say the opposite from what you wrote stop you from your rant.

As someone who is the oldest of 7 kids and has 2 kids of my own, I sometimes think that though there is a ton that parents can do, a lot of the way that kids are is innate. That kids sometimes just have their natural disposition to be a certain way.

You can help guide them, but there are limits. And that as they get older and take on more responsibilities, the role of parents can get marginalized as kids are trying to figure out the world themselves.

[Beebs52]

But it is hubris and folly to suggest that perfect A++++++ parenting can prevent bad stuff from happening to your children as they grow up.

There has never been and never will be a perfect parent. But it is folly to suggest that there is nothing the parents could have done differently to have changed something. Either by setting an example, giving the child just enough rope to learn from minor unimportant mistakes, to moving the family to a different city to force a change in friends the child hangs around with (I talked to people who have done this). I wouldn't say a parent who didn't take the radical action such as moving are poor parents, but if a child continued to associate with the wrong crowd and ends up getting in trouble or killed, that parent should understand that it was an option that they didn't take.

In some ways, your idea on parenting runs contrary to your beliefs about personal responsibility. You want to put blame on parents, but sometimes kids are just humans that learn through experience, good and bad.

No, responsibility can be shared. And it doesn't have to equal 100%. Someone can be 100% responsible for thier actions yet their parents also have some responsibility.

Here's my question, BiT. You're defaulting to the "who's to blame position" in this very quote of yours. Is it ever possible to just say "How tragic. I hope that doesn't happen to me/mine." What's the point of second-guessing what the parents did/didn't do? Of course parents share the blame and his are probably in extreme pain right now. But after a certain point the responsibility is assumed by the doer, unless it's a homicide or something. I don't personally know Heath Ledger, nor Britney Spears, nor any of those other celebrities, nor their parents.