By ROSIE WATERLAND
There has been a lot of talk in the last few days about the inquest into the death of Peaches Geldof. After it was revealed that she had died of a heroin overdose – her eleven-month-old son left alone with her dead body and dozens of syringes for 17 hours – a lot of people had a lot to say.
There are those who have spoken of the tragedy surrounding her death, calling her a ‘fallen angel’ who lost her fight with the disease of addiction. There are others who called bullshit on that line of discourse, and who insisted there should be no sympathy for a ‘junkie’ who was selfish enough to put her child at that kind of risk.
The debate in the media about Peaches seems to have boiled down to one about addicts and choice: Just how much blame can we place on someone who was struggling with addiction? And when you’ve quantified that blame, how much sympathy, if any, does Peaches deserve?
There are valid arguments on both sides, and plenty of people have been willing to make them.
But you know what? I don’t care.
I don’t care about how much sympathy Peaches deserves. I don’t care about her struggle as an addict and what impact that had on her ability to make sound decisions.
I don’t care, because I think it’s the wrong thing for us to be focussing on. And if we’re going to continue to be morbidly fascinated and saddened by the circumstances surrounding her death, we might as well be asking the right questions.
Top Comments
Peaches was a loving mother who had an secret addiction. It seemed that she could take care of her kids pretty well. It was later well known that she was clean during pregnancy and after the birth of her babies. So stop judging her just because she relapsed while alone with her child, one scene does not make the whole movie. On top of that she was wealthy and had the support of her husbands parents besides her own family (and comparing her with some junkie family is just absurd).
I also grew up with an abusive addict father and a severely detached mother. But, unlike you, I don't feel that it is society's responsibility to compensate for the failures of poor parents. It wasn't an aunt or uncle's job to step in, it wasn't society's job to intervene, nor was it the responsibility of the government. Essentially your suggestion is that we pass the parenting off to someone else whenever the road gets rocky. If anything, that enables parental irresponsibility. In addition to that, being raised in a foster situation (or being passed off to other relatives) often leads to tremendous trauma for children as well. Being raised by irresponsible parents, or being taken from your parents and being passed off to others as a child, it's often a psychological wash that leads to trauma either way.
Unfortunately, being raised by failing parents is pretty much the norm these days. But without my terrible parents I wouldn't exist. Without your terrible parents you wouldn't exist. I can't speak for you, but I would rather exist at the hands of incompetent parents, than never exist at all. As adults we need to now be responsible enough to work on healing our own wounds, so that we can enjoy the life we were given. Blaming society for their failure to relieve your parents of their responsibility is a clear cut case of misdirect anger.