Paranoid Parenting: Why Ignoring the Experts May Be Best for Your Child [Archive]

July 18th 03, 07:44 AM

"Elizabeth Reid" > wrote in message
om...
> "JG" > wrote in message
>...
> > "Elizabeth Reid" > wrote in message
> > om...

> > > "JG" > wrote in message
> > >...

> > > > Paranoid Parenting: Why Ignoring the Experts May Be Best for
Your
> > Child
> > > > by Frank Furedi

> > > > http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/1556524641/ref=pd
sim
> > boo
> > > > ks 1/103-5500506-6099835?v=glance&s=books

> > [...]

> > > So, basically, you can't trust the experts, experts are always
> > > warning you about dangers and telling you you can't trust
yourself -
> > > but you should trust *this* expert, who is warning you about
> > > a brand new danger, all the other experts! Worry! Don't worry!
> > > Worry that you're worrying too much! Worry that you're worrying
> > > too little! Stop all that worrying! Buy my book, whatever you
> > > do!

> > Hey, if a single book can convince parents that they're capable of
> > raising their kids (primarily because kids, by and large, are
incredibly
> > resilient), I'm all for it. Kids, IMO, *generally* fare better with
> > confident parents, even if those parents might make what one
> > psycho/socio/medico-babbler or another would consider "mistakes." I
> > know if I were a kid (still one, at heart), I wouldn't be very
happy,
> > let alone very assured, growing up surrounded by shelves of "how to"
> > (raise a child) books!

> Maybe. I can certainly get behind getting parents, and Americans
> in general, to relax and stop worrying and let their kids be
> kids. I just find it richy ironic that this guy wants you to
> buy a book about how parenting books are twaddle.

Hmmm... I don't think Furedi is attacking parenting books per se (many
I've examined aren't totally authoritarian and actually do a fairly
decent job, while covering "the basics" of infant/child care, of
assuring parents
that kids are unique; i.e., that there's no single, unequivocally right
way of doing most things); I think he's simply trying (1) to encourage
parents to rely more on their instincts/intuition and not obsess about
the latest "expert" advice and (2) to reassure them that the results of
doing so will (overwhelmingly) result in "okay" kids.

I also have
> trouble imagining people dippy enough to furnish the kid's room
> with shelves of parenting books doing a good job when set free
> of their fears.

I'm not sure it's possible to set them "free of their fears," but I
think it's worth trying. Unfortunately, the livelihoods of too many
people (those in the so-called "caring" professions), only a minute
fraction of whom actually write books or use the mass media to
disseminate their "expert" opinions/advice, depend on keeping people
dependent (i.e.,
fearful). Think how many gubmnt services/programs could be reduced
(eliminated?) should people no longer "need" them! (And of the monetary
savings and the truly productive uses to which it could be put!) Think
about how many sociologists and psychologists would have to find *real*
jobs should people realize, "Hey, I CAN do this for myself... at least
I'm willing to TRY!" Face it, there are a hell of a lot of "caring"
people who
rely on others' dependency; acting in their "rational self-interest,"
there's no incentive for them to "cure" those whom they're so dedicated
(<snicker>) to "helping."

Though it makes me sound like a curmudgeonly fossil, I honestly think
kids, *in general*, had it better in the '50s and '60s. I certainly
don't recall any angst-afflicted parents (now they're ubiquitous), nor
do I recall kids manifesting the
conditions/behaviors--depression, hyperactivity (in settings/situations
that demanded self-control, such as school or church), short attention
spans, obesity, insolence--to anywhere near the extent they do today.
No doubt the change can be attributed to a number of factors, none
mutually
exclusive: the number of parents who, for whatever reason, turn the
rearing of their young children over to virtual strangers; the
"breakdown" of the nuclear family and the increasing mobility of
families (i.e., the physical separation of generations); the evolution
of a society in which traditional values (e.g., honesty/truthfulness,
integrity) are increasingly perceived as being situationally relative; a
public school system that, *overall*, is egregiously failing to produce
an educated populace; media that offer, more often than not, total crap
that further (assuming that's possible!) dumbs down kids *and* adults;
.... (A dozen other possible reasons readily come to mind, but I've
probably ****ed off enough people already. <g>)

> I'm having trouble getting a fix on how smart you think the
> average person is. They're easily bamboozled by every passing
> book-writer and pediatrician, but deep down they're smart
> enough not to need advice, except for the ones who are too
> stupid to take it. Or something.

Pretty close <g>. I think the "average" person is "average" smart,
which is certainly smart enough to raise a healthy child without a
blueprint furnished by a pediatrician and supplemented by advice from
(out to make a buck, or at least a name for themselves?) "experts." I
also believe an "average" person (parent) can take information from a
variety of sources (e.g.,
news reports/articles, direct observation, anecdotes related by
family/friends), ponder it, and determine what to do with/about it. I
DON'T think the average person needs an "expert" to interpret the same
information for him/her and use it as a basis for advice. Perhaps an
example is in order; I'll borrow one from Wendy's post:

"...a local kid strangled to death on her hooded sweatshirt cord when it
got caught as she was going down the slide. (Her father and brother
were playing in the yard with her and didn't notice her struggle.) As a
direct result of htis story, my kids didn't have hooded sweatshirts
until they were middle-school aged..."

Wendy got some information (we don't know whether by word-of-mouth,
direct observation, or a news report, and it doesn't really matter).
She acted on it (no hooded sweatshirts for her kids). Did she need an
"expert" (pediatrician?) to advise her not to put hooded sweatshirts
with strings on her kids, or at least to remove the strings from them?
NO!

Are there parents so tuned-out to the world--so oblivious to it--that
they NEVER hear such stories (information)? I suppose it's possible,
but I find it *very* difficult to imagine. Are there parents who,
despite hearing such stories *and* possessing the intelligence/acumen to
perceive their "lesson," nevertheless DON'T apply it to their own lives?
Sure! (SOME of these individuals don't apply the lesson because, after
carefully considering it, they come up with rational reasons not to.

SOME don't apply it simply because they DON'T ponder it--they simply
ignore it altogether. THESE people, in my book, are the "idiots.") Are
there parents who, despite hearing such a story, CAN'T (don't have the
ability to) perceive its lesson and thus don't apply it? Undoubtedly,
but I assert they constitute a *very* small minority of the "parent
pool." (THESE are the people for whom an argument that advising is
needed could be made.)
[i]
> Me, I think the average person would have happier kids if they
> all stopped seeing child abductors behind every tree and
> weren't convinced that Harvard was the only path to life
> success, ...

I agree!

....but I don't have the faith in the power of confident
> and uninformed parenting that you seem to.

Surely confident, *informed* parents are preferable. I'm simply
perturbed by the attitude of *some* advice-givers (which is actually
*most*, in my experience <g>) that *they* have to elucidate/interpret
INFORMATION for everyone. I'm particularly bothered when self-declared
"experts" venture outside their realm of expertise, such as when
pediatricians dispense *safety* (re: guns, bikes, swimming pools, car
seats...) advice rather than sticking to *health* matters.

Wendy Marsden

July 19th 03, 01:56 AM

JG > wrote:
> Bravo! You had some information (pen cap-->possibility of dying if one
> gets lodged in the throat), you pondered it, and you acted upon it, ALL
> without an "expert" (e.g., a pediatrician) advising you on a course of
> action. I'm sure *most* parents would do the same thing.

If they heard about the hazard. Did you? Perhaps the only one who would
think to mention it to them is their pediatrician.

I can't say that I've mentioned it to all that many of my friends. I read
a couple of different papers and retain a lot of information - most of my
friends don't. But I don't get into conversations with them on the
subject of all the dead kids of whom I've ever heard.

-- Wendy

PF Riley

July 19th 03, 11:29 PM

On Sat, 19 Jul 2003 00:56:13 GMT, Wendy Marsden
> wrote:

>JG > wrote:
>> Bravo! You had some information (pen cap-->possibility of dying if one
>> gets lodged in the throat), you pondered it, and you acted upon it, ALL
>> without an "expert" (e.g., a pediatrician) advising you on a course of
>> action. I'm sure *most* parents would do the same thing.
>
>If they heard about the hazard. Did you? Perhaps the only one who would
>think to mention it to them is their pediatrician.

Exxxxxactly. Would JG instead perefer that each social circle suffer a
mishap from a particular threat before anyone becomes aware of it? How
about learning from past mistakes instead?

PF

PF Riley

July 19th 03, 11:40 PM

On Fri, 18 Jul 2003 06:44:43 GMT, "JG" > wrote:
>
>I'm not sure it's possible to set them "free of their fears," but I
>think it's worth trying. Unfortunately, the livelihoods of too many
>people (those in the so-called "caring" professions), only a minute
>fraction of whom actually write books or use the mass media to
>disseminate their "expert" opinions/advice, depend on keeping people
>dependent (i.e.,
>fearful). Think how many gubmnt services/programs could be reduced
>(eliminated?) should people no longer "need" them! (And of the monetary
>savings and the truly productive uses to which it could be put!) Think
>about how many sociologists and psychologists would have to find *real*
>jobs should people realize, "Hey, I CAN do this for myself... at least
>I'm willing to TRY!" Face it, there are a hell of a lot of "caring"
>people who
>rely on others' dependency; acting in their "rational self-interest,"
>there's no incentive for them to "cure" those whom they're so dedicated
>(<snicker>) to "helping."

You are wrong, and I expect more from you, being among those whom I
consider to be the least paranoid in this newsgroup. You have hinted
at this before -- your belief that those who help others, in this case
psychologists, actually consciously provide suboptimal therapy in
order to prevent the patient from no longer needing his services any
further. This is pure bull****. Any competition is not for billable
hours. It's for the reputation as the best so that you have more than
enough business to keep you busy.

Would you apply the same logic and conclude that I would undertreat
ear infections, hoping they'll recur, so I can see the patient again
and charge for another office visit? Or that I'd try to pick an
antidepressant that I know won't work so the patient has to come back
over and over again for medication changes?

>the evolution of a society in which traditional values (e.g.,
>honesty/truthfulness, integrity) are increasingly perceived as being
>situationally relative;

Ah, like, say, asserting, as you and Roger have, that it's OK to lie
to your doctor (as opposed to simply refusing to answer) if he asks a
question which you believe is none of his business?

PF

PF Riley

July 19th 03, 11:43 PM

On 18 Jul 2003 09:19:38 -0700, (Elizabeth Reid)
wrote:
>
>I don't think anyone would argue with you that obesity is on the
>rise, that's well documented. For the other problems, though, I
>can't say for sure whether you're right or wrong, but my training
>leads me to distrust recollection as a measure of social change.
>For instance, one reason parents are so afraid right now is that
>they're convinced that child abductions and molestations are much
>more common now than they were during their own childhoods
>a few decades ago. This is just plain demonstrably untrue, but
>that perception is controlling a lot of parental behavior.

Agreed. There were plenty of high school dropouts, teen girls getting
pregnant, heroin addicts, etc. in the 1950's and 1960's. You just
didn't hear about them as much.

PF

Wendy Marsden

July 20th 03, 01:44 AM

JG > wrote:

> Though it makes me sound like a curmudgeonly fossil, I honestly think
> kids, *in general*, had it better in the '50s and '60s. I certainly
> don't recall any angst-afflicted parents (now they're ubiquitous), nor
> do I recall kids manifesting the
> conditions/behaviors--depression, hyperactivity (in settings/situations
> that demanded self-control, such as school or church), short attention
> spans, obesity, insolence--to anywhere near the extent they do today.

You're kidding, right? In my own family I can think of a kid who died in
a drunk driving accident, a kid who unfortunately DIDN'T die in the same
accident (brain damaged for what is turning out to be a long life) and a
baby who died of heart failure (with a Mom who didn't know how to make a
fuss about getting her treated.) Oh, and a fifteen year old who gave
birth in a home for unwed mothers, several shotgun weddings with babies
born six months later and enough depression to recognize why the
song "Mother's Little Helpers" was such a hit. And let's not forget the
night one of my cousins shot and killed his brother with the family
handgun thinking he was an intruder.

That's just from the 50's and 60's in my family. A bit of awareness of
dangers and issues and some better parenting might have saved a lot of
grief.

Oh, and hyperactivity. Don't you know that boys will be boys? (I'll
leave off the hyper stories because they're from the seventies.)

You left off the good old days without homosexuality. I have a gay cousin
who was bullied to bleeding and kept having to leave schools from the age
of middle-school onwards. That was in the sixties and seventies in the
midwest - he was lucky not to get killed. He's still emotionally wrecked
about his sexuality, though. Too bad his parents denied it
(vehimently) and he was never able to get the parenting he needed.

--Wendy

July 22nd 03, 08:54 PM

"PF Riley" > wrote in message
...
> On Sat, 19 Jul 2003 00:56:13 GMT, Wendy Marsden
> > wrote:

> >JG > wrote:

> >> Bravo! You had some information (pen cap-->possibility of dying if
one
> >> gets lodged in the throat), you pondered it, and you acted upon it,
ALL
> >> without an "expert" (e.g., a pediatrician) advising you on a course
of
> >> action. I'm sure *most* parents would do the same thing.

> >If they heard about the hazard. Did you? Perhaps the only one who
would
> >think to mention it to them is their pediatrician.

> Exxxxxactly. Would JG instead perefer that each social circle suffer a
> mishap from a particular threat before anyone becomes aware of it? How
> about learning from past mistakes instead?

My point exxxxxactly.<g> *I* think virtually all people (parents) are
capable not only of learning from (others') specific past mistakes, but
also of drawing analogies such as that, say, between drapery cords and
sweatshirt drawstrings. Those who've never heard a single strangulation
story (from some source/someone other than their pediatrician, that is)
are pretty damned tuned-out.

JG

July 22nd 03, 08:55 PM

"PF Riley" > wrote in message
...
> On 18 Jul 2003 09:19:38 -0700, (Elizabeth Reid)
> wrote:

> >I don't think anyone would argue with you that obesity is on the
> >rise, that's well documented. For the other problems, though, I
> >can't say for sure whether you're right or wrong, but my training
> >leads me to distrust recollection as a measure of social change.
> >For instance, one reason parents are so afraid right now is that
> >they're convinced that child abductions and molestations are much
> >more common now than they were during their own childhoods
> >a few decades ago. This is just plain demonstrably untrue, but
> >that perception is controlling a lot of parental behavior.

> Agreed. There were plenty of high school dropouts, teen girls getting
> pregnant, heroin addicts, etc. in the 1950's and 1960's. You just
> didn't hear about them as much.

Funny thing, most of those who dropped out of high school in '50s and
'60s had probably learned more by the time they left school than most
graduates know today! It was somewhat easier to drop out then, of
course (you just left); today administrators bend over backwards to keep
kids enrolled (= more money for the district, as well as a better
reputation; districts around here tout their low dropout rates), even if
it means pampering them in "alternative learning" programs.

Teen pregnancy? Sure, more girls aged 15-19 *gave birth* in the '50s
and '60s than today, but you know what, PF? It's likely they were
*married*. Why don't you look up some statistics to compare, say, the
number of sexually active teens 40 years ago versus the number today?
(STD stats should be interesting, too.) While you're at it, perhaps
you'll stumble across statistics regarding the number of teenagers
('50s/'60s vs. today) obtaining abortions.

Just how many *kids* (they're whom we're discussing, after all) were
using heroin (and pot, don't forget pot, PF!) in the '50s and '60s? Do
you honestly think the number (or rate) could possibly hold candle to
the number of teens using illegal drugs--ecstasy, cocaine/crack, meth
(speed), inhalants, pot, heroin, ... (oh, and let's not forget
*legal*--prescription--drugs, e.g., Oxycontin and Ritalin) today? What
are *you* smokin', Riley? <g>

As to why "you just didn't hear about them [problems] as much," the
explanation's simple: The (*much* smaller) government had its hands
full performing functions considerably more important than "public
health" (i.e., than nannying the populace), and the problems discussed
above were perceived as *private* (family, and, to a certain extent,
community) matters, not matters into which the government had any
business sticking its nose. (BTW, items such as who was using drugs and
who "had" to get married usually *were* common knowledge within a
community; lots of stuff was heard "through the grapevine," or by
eavesdropping on your mom's bridge group. :-D)

JG

July 22nd 03, 08:56 PM

"Elizabeth Reid" > wrote in message
om...
> "JG" > wrote in message
>...
> > "Elizabeth Reid" > wrote in message
> > om...
> > > "JG" > wrote in message
> > >...
>
> > > > > "JG" > wrote in message
> > > > >...
> >
> > > > > > Paranoid Parenting: Why Ignoring the Experts May Be Best
for
> > Your
> > Child
> > > > > > by Frank Furedi
> >
> > > > > >
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/1556524641/ref=pd
> > sim
> > boo

> > > Maybe. I can certainly get behind getting parents, and Americans
> > > in general, to relax and stop worrying and let their kids be
> > > kids. I just find it richy ironic that this guy wants you to
> > > buy a book about how parenting books are twaddle.

> > Hmmm... I don't think Furedi is attacking parenting books per se
(many
> > I've examined aren't totally authoritarian and actually do a fairly
> > decent job, while covering "the basics" of infant/child care, of
> > assuring parents
> > that kids are unique; i.e., that there's no single, unequivocally
right
> > way of doing most things); I think he's simply trying (1) to
encourage
> > parents to rely more on their instincts/intuition and not obsess
about
> > the latest "expert" advice and (2) to reassure them that the results
of
> > doing so will (overwhelmingly) result in "okay" kids.

> That's reasonable, I guess. Another book that I liked for this
> (and I know this is controversial, but as a former child developement
> researcher I thought a lot of it was astute) was 'The Nurture
> Assumption'. Parts of the author's thesis seemed shaky to me,
> but the part that held up the best was the shakiness of the evidence
> that any particular child-rearing approach had a predictably
> good or controllable outcome.

While there's apparently a dearth of *empirical* evidence to support
Harris's contention that peers have greater influence (than parents) on
the social/personality development of kids, her beliefs would tend to
bolster my assertion that we're devolving into a society of, at best,
intellectual and moral mediocrity. Coincidentally, I just finished
reading the op-ed page of Sunday's Denver Post/Rocky Mountain News; it
contained a column by Ronald S. Martin (available at
http://www.creators.com/opinion_show.cfm?columnsName=rma). In it (the
focus was on role models for black youth in light of Kobe Bryant being
charged with rape), Martin wrote, "It may sound stupid, but there are
black kids right now who choose to fail in school because their friends
consider them to be 'acting white' by studying and making good grades."

> > I also have
> > > trouble imagining people dippy enough to furnish the kid's room
> > > with shelves of parenting books doing a good job when set free
> > > of their fears.

> > I'm not sure it's possible to set them "free of their fears," but I
> > think it's worth trying. Unfortunately, the livelihoods of too many
> > people (those in the so-called "caring" professions), only a minute
> > fraction of whom actually write books or use the mass media to
> > disseminate their "expert" opinions/advice, depend on keeping people
> > dependent (i.e.,
> > fearful). Think how many gubmnt

> As an aside, I do wish you'd stop using that silly 'abbreviation'.
> It makes you look illiterate, and I know you're not.

When I perceive legitimate action (not just lip service) being taken to
reduce/limit/restore our government to that envisioned by the framers of
the Constitution, I'll return to your (apparently) preferred spelling.
I'm not counting
on seeing such action in my lifetime. I seriously doubt anyone would
think I'm illiterate (I certainly wouldn't give a rat's ass if they
did!), and the intentional misspelling is an efficient way of giving
politically savvy people a clue to my political beliefs. (Believe it or
not, some folks are actually so ****ed off
they've dropped additional letters. <g>)

> > Though it makes me sound like a curmudgeonly fossil, I honestly
think
> > kids, *in general*, had it better in the '50s and '60s. I certainly
> > don't recall any angst-afflicted parents (now they're ubiquitous),
nor
> > do I recall kids manifesting the
> > conditions/behaviors--depression, hyperactivity (in
settings/situations
> > that demanded self-control, such as school or church), short
attention
> > spans, obesity, insolence--to anywhere near the extent they do
today.

> It's sort of interesting; cnn.com's lead headline right now is
> 'Kids living better, but getting bigger.'

Humph. "Better" is entirely subjective.

> I don't think anyone would argue with you that obesity is on the
> rise, that's well documented. For the other problems, though, I
> can't say for sure whether you're right or wrong, but my training
> leads me to distrust recollection as a measure of social change.
> For instance, one reason parents are so afraid right now is that
> they're convinced that child abductions and molestations are much
> more common now than they were during their own childhoods
> a few decades ago. This is just plain demonstrably untrue, but
> that perception is controlling a lot of parental behavior.

> So before we discuss the causes of these perceived changes, I'd
> want some evidence other than your memory that they actually
> exist.

Look up stats for both legal (prescribed) and illegal drug usage. For
divorce. For teen sexual activity/STD rates. (Okay, so contraceptives
for kids
weren't as readily obtainable in the '50s and '60s...) While you're at
it, look up the stats (you might find some at the BLS; www.bls.gov) for
the number (and demand) for social workers and psychologists. Either
the
"need" (demand) for those in the "caring" professions has increased
exponentially OR individuals are going into these fields and
*creating*/maintaining a (false) demand for their services. (And, lest
anyone be tempted to trot out the tiresome "Well, we're simply better at
diagnosing problems," explanation, forget about it; it's a load
of--excuse
me--crap.)

As I've remarked before, the tendency of adults to
> gloss over their own generation's misbehaviors and say that
> the behavior of the current generation is disgraceful and will
> be immediately followed by the collapse of civilization is a
> pretty standard part of aging. (It's sort of like how your
> generation listened to *good* music, not the crap that's
> available now. No matter what generation you're from.)

Ahem... I'm not THAT old. <g> Will American civilization "as we know
(knew?) it" collapse? Undoubtedly it will, eventually. I don't expect
a total implosion (nor conquest by outsiders) in my lifetime (how long
did ancient Rome survive, 800-1000 years?), but neither do I expect a
reversal of the overall decline that I perceive.

> > > I'm having trouble getting a fix on how smart you think the
> > > average person is. They're easily bamboozled by every passing
> > > book-writer and pediatrician, but deep down they're smart
> > > enough not to need advice, except for the ones who are too
> > > stupid to take it. Or something.

> > Pretty close <g>. I think the "average" person is "average" smart,
> > which is certainly smart enough to raise a healthy child without a
> > blueprint furnished by a pediatrician and supplemented by advice
from
> > (out to make a buck, or at least a name for themselves?) "experts."
I
> > also believe an "average" person (parent) can take information from
a
> > variety of sources (e.g.,
> > news reports/articles, direct observation, anecdotes related by
> > family/friends), ponder it, and determine what to do with/about it.
I
> > DON'T think the average person needs an "expert" to interpret the
same
> > information for him/her and use it as a basis for advice. Perhaps
an
> > example is in order; I'll borrow one from Wendy's post:

> > "...a local kid strangled to death on her hooded sweatshirt cord
when it
> > got caught as she was going down the slide. (Her father and brother
> > were playing in the yard with her and didn't notice her struggle.)
As a
> > direct result of htis story, my kids didn't have hooded sweatshirts
> > until they were middle-school aged..."

> > Wendy got some information (we don't know whether by word-of-mouth,
> > direct observation, or a news report, and it doesn't really matter).
> > She acted on it (no hooded sweatshirts for her kids). Did she need
an
> > "expert" (pediatrician?) to advise her not to put hooded sweatshirts
> > with strings on her kids, or at least to remove the strings from
them?
> > NO!

> But you're assuming that every individual parent is going to hear
> a story about every individual danger,

Not at all! I'm assuming that virtually every parent (likely well in
advance of becoming a parent) is going to hear about a choking incident.
(Hard not to, of course, with 2500+ choking-related deaths a year!) And
who
hasn't, by adulthood, had a food-related choking incident *themselves*,
i.e., one in which the possibility of passing out, if not dying, didn't
briefly
cross his/her mind? I think the average parent can extrapolate; if
they'd stop to think about it, they'd realize that a bite of hot dog is
similar to a piece of carrot, a chunk of fruit, or a piece of popcorn.
(Fact is, people can and do choke on innumerable food and non-food
items.) Saying "I didn't know (a kid could choke on a bite of hot dog)"
is absurd; a believable statement would be, "I wasn't thinking (when I
gave my toddler a hot dog)."

which seems really unlikely.
> I don't know anyone who strangled on a sweatshirt cord, and to
> be honest, without the advice of professionals wouldn't have ever
> given it a second thought. To an adult, sweatshirts, the
> cords that hang from blinds, buckets with small amounts of
> water in them, etc., just don't look all that dangerous. Hoping
> that each parent will happen to read a story about a kid dying
> from one of these hazards is really inefficient, aside from the
> obvious defect that a kid has to die every once in a while to
> serve as an object lesson for others to write articles and
> tell stories about.

It's impossible, not to mention costly (time-wise, = inefficient) for
pediatricians to advise their patients' parents about every conceivable
hazard, the awareness of which often arises from freak, isolated
accidents. Wouldn't it be much, much better for them (pediatricians) to
simply encourage (advise) parents to keep a close eye on their young
kids at all times and to acquire some basic life-saving (e.g., CPR)
skills? Wendy's drawstring strangling death would have been averted
(had the family members present been keeping a closer eye on the girl),
as would, I daresay, virtually every (especially non-food-related)
choking death.

> > Are there parents so tuned-out to the world--so oblivious to
it--that
> > they NEVER hear such stories (information)? I suppose it's
possible,
> > but I find it *very* difficult to imagine.

> Why? By their nature, these events are relatively rare; most
> kids are going to survive sweatshirts with strings on them.

Of course. Again, I believe most parents are capable of drawing
analogies; e.g., "Kids have strangled on drapery cords, therefore it's
conceivable they could strangle on drawstrings."

> > Surely confident, *informed* parents are preferable. I'm simply
> > perturbed by the attitude of *some* advice-givers (which is actually
> > *most*, in my experience <g>) that *they* have to
elucidate/interpret
> > INFORMATION for everyone. I'm particularly bothered when
self-declared
> > "experts" venture outside their realm of expertise, such as when
> > pediatricians dispense *safety* (re: guns, bikes, swimming pools,
car
> > seats...) advice rather than sticking to *health* matters.

> So your view is that parents should be given the information,
> "Sometimes garments with drawstrings that fasten around the
> neck kill children"..

More or less. (As I've repeatedly stated, though, I don't think it's
necessary
for pediatricians to even convey this sort of information; it's widely
available.)

[Slight correction: A person's *actions* (inattentiveness?)
with inanimate objects might result in injury/death; garments with
drawstrings don't kill children any more than guns kill children or than
French fries and Oreos make people fat.]

and that's okay, but that following that
> with the sentence, "... so therefore it's a good idea for you
> to take the strings out" is insulting because it's an
> interpretation?

It's insulting because that's the conclusion to which a thinking person
would arrive on his own.

JG

July 22nd 03, 08:56 PM

"Wendy Marsden" > wrote in message
...
> JG > wrote:

> > Though it makes me sound like a curmudgeonly fossil, I honestly
think
> > kids, *in general*, had it better in the '50s and '60s. I certainly
> > don't recall any angst-afflicted parents (now they're ubiquitous),
nor
> > do I recall kids manifesting the
> > conditions/behaviors--depression, hyperactivity (in
settings/situations
> > that demanded self-control, such as school or church), short
attention
> > spans, obesity, insolence--to anywhere near the extent they do
today.

> You're kidding, right? In my own family I can think of a kid who died
in
> a drunk driving accident, a kid who unfortunately DIDN'T die in the
same
> accident (brain damaged for what is turning out to be a long life) and
a
> baby who died of heart failure (with a Mom who didn't know how to make
a
> fuss about getting her treated.) Oh, and a fifteen year old who gave
> birth in a home for unwed mothers, several shotgun weddings with
babies
> born six months later and enough depression to recognize why the
> song "Mother's Little Helpers" was such a hit. And let's not forget
the
> night one of my cousins shot and killed his brother with the family
> handgun thinking he was an intruder.

Your family, especially in light of the fact that so many mishaps seem
to befall it, should perhaps be *exceptionally* careful.

> That's just from the 50's and 60's in my family. A bit of awareness
of
> dangers and issues and some better parenting might have saved a lot of
> grief.

Seems like the latter would have been more beneficial.

> Oh, and hyperactivity. Don't you know that boys will be boys? (I'll
> leave off the hyper stories because they're from the seventies.)

I wonder how many of the kids--boys and girls--I regularly played with
in the summer and after school would be hauled in today to be checked
for ADHD? Heck, we were constantly on the move, only pausing for lunch
and dinner and when we were called in as it got dark. If we weren't
playing games (kick-the-can and Red Rover were my favorites), you'd find
us roller skating (on rickety skates you fastened to your shoes with a
skate key) or riding our bikes (both sans helmets--what WERE our parents
thinking?) to the community center pool or to the ballpark (I don't
think any of knew what soccer was!), or running through the woods
playing army (most of our dads had served in WWII). Rain did slow us
down; we'd usually go to someone's garage and play board games
(Monopoly, Parcheesi, Clue--which I wouldn't play if I couldn't be Miss
Scarlet <g>) while sucking on Fizzies, or do other fun stuff like see
who could shoot (blast) a roll of caps (with a rock; we only used cap
guns in the woods) fastest while we waited for the ice cream man or the
mail truck to come by. (Gene the mailman would let us climb in the back
and ride around, back door open, for a couple of blocks. Guess it's
lucky he didn't go very fast, huh, seeing that there weren't any seats,
let alone seat belts!) I'm sure our go-go-go lives would drive lots of
today's moms bonkers. (Come to think of it, we could be rather mean, by
today's standards. I distinctly remember our "gang" running to the top
of a small hill that separated our cluster of houses from the next one.
When one particular, rather chubby--"husky" was the current
euphemism--boy would emerge from his house, we'd cry out, in unison,
"XXX, XXX, two by four, couldn't get through the bathroom door, so he
went on the floor!!!" We'd then turn and run, as fast as our legs could
carry us, past our houses and into the woods. Well, one day his dad was
home (yikes!). No sooner had we gotten "XXX, XXX" out of our mouths
than here came his dad, holding the ends of a folded-over belt in one
hand and slapping the loop across the other (YIKES!!!). Of course we
bolted as he stalked towards us. Unfortunately, my (derogatory
adjectives deleted <g>) brother literally ran out of his shoes (he
wasn't slowed in the least; guess adrenaline has that effect...), but
Mary Carol ("M.C."), our tacitly acknowledged leader (earned by merit;
this was well before the "feminist movement"), fearless soul that she
was, did a 180, scooped up the shoes, and caught up with us in a matter
of seconds. Mr. XXX didn't catch us (I've always wondered whether he
could have <g>), nor, apparently, did he tell our parents (talk about
living in abject fear for a couple of days!) Did we ever taunt XXX
again? Nope. (Nor did we include him in our activities, however.) Was
he scarred for life? I doubt it. Last I heard, he was a corporate VP
living on Park Avenue. Yup; I'd say things were a helluva lot better
for kids 40 years ago. <sigh>

> You left off the good old days without homosexuality. I have a gay
cousin
> who was bullied to bleeding and kept having to leave schools from the
age
> of middle-school onwards. That was in the sixties and seventies in
the
> midwest - he was lucky not to get killed. He's still emotionally
wrecked
> about his sexuality, though. Too bad his parents denied it
> (vehimently) and he was never able to get the parenting he needed.

And you don't think these problems still exist? (Ask Judy
Shepard--www.matthewsplace.com --whether she thinks gays actually have
it much better now.)

JG

PF Riley

July 23rd 03, 04:57 AM

On Tue, 22 Jul 2003 19:54:30 GMT, "JG" > wrote:

>"PF Riley" > wrote in message
...
>
>> Exxxxxactly. Would JG instead perefer that each social circle suffer a
>> mishap from a particular threat before anyone becomes aware of it? How
>> about learning from past mistakes instead?
>
>My point exxxxxactly.<g> *I* think virtually all people (parents) are
>capable not only of learning from (others') specific past mistakes, but
>also of drawing analogies such as that, say, between drapery cords and
>sweatshirt drawstrings. Those who've never heard a single strangulation
>story (from some source/someone other than their pediatrician, that is)
>are pretty damned tuned-out.

So what about the educated, conscientious mom who simply didn't know
about the risk of hot dogs? Was her son's death "necessary" so that
people could learn from her?

PF

PF Riley

July 23rd 03, 07:01 AM

On Tue, 22 Jul 2003 19:56:00 GMT, "JG" > wrote:
>
>It's impossible, not to mention costly (time-wise, = inefficient) for
>pediatricians to advise their patients' parents about every conceivable
>hazard, the awareness of which often arises from freak, isolated
>accidents. Wouldn't it be much, much better for them (pediatricians) to
>simply encourage (advise) parents to keep a close eye on their young
>kids at all times and to acquire some basic life-saving (e.g., CPR)
>skills?

Give me a break. You've tried to make this ridiculous suggestion
before. Why you think it's condescending and/or insulting to parents
if I warn against specific hazards but somehow it's not even more so
if I simply "advise" them to "keep a close eye on their young kids" is
beyond me. It's like when you said I should tell people to avoid
choking hazards but not elaborate lest I insult someone, when what
would typically happen is that the ones who would want me to go into
more detail would be the ones least likely to ask me to for fear that
I would think they're stupid, as my initial failure to go into more
detail would be a tacit implication that they should know such details
already without having to ask.

Here's an idea. Instead of trying to warn about every conceivable
hazard, which is impossible (except when it comes to obtaining
informed consent for vaccines, according to Roger), why not have
pediatricians glean from their experience the hazards that are
commonly overlooked by parents and frequently result in harm, and
advise selectively on those particular hazards? Oh wait, that's what I
do already.

PF

PF Riley

July 23rd 03, 07:03 AM

On Tue, 22 Jul 2003 19:56:37 GMT, "JG" > wrote:
>
>[Ray Bradbury-esque memoirs of a simpler time from JG omitted.]

You don't honestly expect us to accept your own childhood memories as
"proof" that the good ol' days really were better, now, do you?

PF

Roger Schlafly

July 23rd 03, 08:07 AM

"PF Riley" > wrote
> pediatricians glean from their experience the hazards that are
> commonly overlooked by parents and frequently result in harm, ...

When do you give all this advice, anyway? The only time I ever
take my kid to the ped is when she is sick, and then all I ask
about concerns the diagnosis and treatment of the problem.
I would never ask about choking. If I wanted parenting advice,
then I'd consult a parenting book. There are lots of good cheap
books that are a whole lot better than talking to a ped.

CBI

July 23rd 03, 10:24 PM

"PF Riley" > wrote in message
...
> On Tue, 22 Jul 2003 19:56:00 GMT, "JG" > wrote:
> >
> >It's impossible, not to mention costly (time-wise, = inefficient) for
> >pediatricians to advise their patients' parents about every conceivable
> >hazard, the awareness of which often arises from freak, isolated
> >accidents. Wouldn't it be much, much better for them (pediatricians) to
> >simply encourage (advise) parents to keep a close eye on their young
> >kids at all times and to acquire some basic life-saving (e.g., CPR)
> >skills?
>
> Give me a break. You've tried to make this ridiculous suggestion
> before. Why you think it's condescending and/or insulting to parents
> if I warn against specific hazards but somehow it's not even more so
> if I simply "advise" them to "keep a close eye on their young kids" is
> beyond me.

Imagine the howls we would read from JGer if the AAP came out with that
policy!

"Today the AAP announced a new recommendation admonishing pediatricians to
remind parents to keep a close eye on their childen. 'The list of specific
hazzards was growing just too darn long, so we are just saying to watch
them. It is much more time efficient that way,' said an AAP spokesperson who
wishes to remain anonymous. In a related story the NIH has decided to do
away with all classificcations of disease favoring the two term system of
'healthy' and 'not healthy' as much more practical........"

--
CBI, MD

July 24th 03, 06:14 AM

"PF Riley" > wrote in message
...
> On Tue, 22 Jul 2003 19:56:00 GMT, "JG" > wrote:

> >It's impossible, not to mention costly (time-wise, = inefficient) for
> >pediatricians to advise their patients' parents about every
conceivable
> >hazard, the awareness of which often arises from freak, isolated
> >accidents. Wouldn't it be much, much better for them (pediatricians)
to
> >simply encourage (advise) parents to keep a close eye on their young
> >kids at all times and to acquire some basic life-saving (e.g., CPR)
> >skills?

> Give me a break. You've tried to make this ridiculous suggestion
> before. Why you think it's condescending and/or insulting to parents
> if I warn against specific hazards but somehow it's not even more so
> if I simply "advise" them to "keep a close eye on their young kids" is
> beyond me.

Sure, it's insulting. (*Equally*, not more so: At least you'd be
conveying that you think they're capable of monitoring their kids and
learning
CPR). Instead of "better," I should have simply said "more efficient,"
which is what I assumed people would infer after my statement that
specifying all conceivable hazards is *inefficient*.

It's like when you said I should tell people to avoid
> choking hazards but not elaborate lest I insult someone, when what
> would typically happen is that the ones who would want me to go into
> more detail would be the ones least likely to ask me to for fear that
> I would think they're stupid, as my initial failure to go into more
> detail would be a tacit implication that they should know such details
> already without having to ask.

Holy cow, Riley! First you make assumptions about what parents do and
don't KNOW, and now you make assumptions about what they FEEL (e.g.,
embarrassment). Do they know how utterly arrogant you are? (I suppose
not, huh, since they apparently have to have you do their thinking for
them...)

You think that parents would perceive your "initial failure to go into
more detail" as implying that they *should* know such details? Why
shouldn't/wouldn't they perceive it as your believing that they *DO*
know them, i.e., that you believe (and trust) that they're competent,
informed parents?

> Here's an idea. Instead of trying to warn about every conceivable
> hazard, which is impossible (except when it comes to obtaining
> informed consent for vaccines, according to Roger), why not have
> pediatricians glean from their experience the hazards that are
> commonly overlooked by parents and frequently result in harm, and
> advise selectively on those particular hazards? Oh wait, that's what I
> do already.

Fine, go ahead and treat each set of parents differently (selectively),
based upon not only how much you think they need to be told, but also
upon how much you believe they want--even though they're too embarrassed
to ask for--your advice. Let's hope you're never sued for malpractice
by the parents of a deceased patient whose death would likely have been
prevented had they simply followed some piece of advice you *regularly
dispense* to others but didn't (neglected to?) convey to them because
you thought they were "smart enough" to know it. (It wouldn't matter if
you're right--i.e., if they did, in fact, know it--unless you could
prove they knew it.) Your failure to convey the advice to them, in
light of your dispensing it, UNSOLICITED, to others, probably wouldn't
sit well with jurors.

Why not follow Mark's example? Say to parents, "At his age he can eat
anything he isn't going to choke on." You can't possibly believe that
any conscientious-but-"uneducated" parent's curiosity wouldn't be
piqued, i.e., that he/she wouldn't ask, "Such as?" or "What kinds of
things do kids choke on?" At least you have, as Mark pointed out,
covered your ass.

JG

July 24th 03, 06:14 AM

"Roger Schlafly" > wrote in message
.. .

> "PF Riley" > wrote
> > pediatricians glean from their experience the hazards that are
> > commonly overlooked by parents and frequently result in harm, ...

> When do you give all this advice, anyway? The only time I ever
> take my kid to the ped is when she is sick, and then all I ask
> about concerns the diagnosis and treatment of the problem.
> I would never ask about choking. If I wanted parenting advice,
> then I'd consult a parenting book. There are lots of good cheap
> books that are a whole lot better than talking to a ped.

I agree. Perhaps PF should "gift" all his new patients' parents with
such a book. (Ooops! That would probably be insulting/embarrassing to
those who are illiterate and ashamed to admit it, huh? <g>)

JG

July 24th 03, 06:16 AM

"PF Riley" > wrote in message
...

> So what about the educated, conscientious mom who simply didn't know
> about the risk of hot dogs? Was her son's death "necessary" so that
> people could learn from her?

(1) "Educated" (...what an utterly bogus word that has become; it means
nothing these days other than someone has completed a course of
training/instruction, whether it be in astronomy or astrology) does not
mean *thinking*.

(2) Merely because the woman never fixed on a (piece of) hot dog
*specifically* doesn't mean she wasn't capable of knowing, and probably
*would* have known, IF SHE'D GIVEN IT EVEN FIVE SECONDS OF THOUGHT, that
her son might choke.

(3) People--adults and kids alike (remember, this kid was *4*) can
choke on just about anything. If he'd choked on a chunk of peanut
butter, his mom would probably have said, "I didn't know you could choke
on peanut butter!" Is she going to insist that she didn't know, AT ALL,
what choking is? Let's say, over the course of her lifetime, she's
either witnessed or heard reports of three individuals who choked on (1)
a bite of steak, (2) some popcorn, and (3) a bite of apple. Is she such
a dolt that she'd think, "It's okay to give my son anything except
steak, popcorn, and apples."? C'mon! Furthermore, would you honestly
expect her to say either, "Yeah, I knew he could choke on a hot dog, but
I gave it to him anyway," or "I didn't think about whether he might
choke on a hot dog"? The latter statement would make her appear
negligent; the former could be interpreted as her being *more* than
negligent. Better, I guess (from a saving-face standpoint), to just
plead ignorance, with the veiled implication that the incident wasn't
your fault; i.e., that it was the fault of those--your son's
pediatrician? the gubmnt?--who didn't "educate" you about hot dogs, who
didn't look you directly in the eye and specifically state, "Your son
can choke on a piece of hot dog."

In answer to your question, no, it was not necessary for her son to die
in order to learn from her. The lesson, though, is to be careful with
any food at any age, not simply that a four-year-old can choke on a hot
dog. (Do you honestly think there are parents who would hear this story
and think, "I guess it's okay to give my kids hot dogs; this kid was
four, and
mine's five [or three]"?)

JG

Wendy Marsden

July 24th 03, 01:48 PM

PF Riley > wrote:

> And in my experience, the children who only come in when they are sick
> and don't come in for check-ups certainly have a poorer outcome should
> they develop health problems.

My two year old started throwing up on a Friday morning. No fever, no
rash, no reported pain, just throwing up. On Sunday morning I insisted
the ped x-ray his gut and get a WBC because, "something just isn't right."

I showed up at the doctor's office in grungy sweats, unwashed, worried
about things like obstructed bowel or perforated intestines with
peritonitis or acute appendicitis... the Doctor laughed and asked if had
been reading Robin Cook novels.

BUT HE TOOK ME SERIOUSLY BECAUSE HE KNEW ME WHEN I *WASN'T* INCOHERENT
WITH FEAR. Any other parent would have been told that it was
the stomach flu and sent home without expensive off-hour tests.

But after seeing the white blood count and the distended bowels in the
x-ray we were sent immediately for emergency surgery at regional medical
center. My previous relationship with that pediatric practice saved my
two year old's life.

He had several perforations in his small intestines with peritonitis. The
"something doesn't feel right" was an ileus, which I had never heard of
before and couldn't explain why it felt wrong, but I was correct that his
nausea was different than normal stomach flu. (In a normal stomach flu
you feel better after throwing up for a few minutes. With an ileus you do
not. Four ounces of ginger ale would go down and four ounces of ginger
ale would come back up and he would still be moaning.

I learned many, many things during this kid's illness and recovery, but
one thing I realized for sure: well baby check-ups served to establish MY
relationship with the pediatrician so that they could believe me when I
told them about zebras.

-- Wendy

Elizabeth Reid

July 25th 03, 03:34 PM

"JG" > wrote in message >...
> "Elizabeth Reid" > wrote in message
> om...

> > > Though it makes me sound like a curmudgeonly fossil, I honestly
> think
> > > kids, *in general*, had it better in the '50s and '60s. I certainly
> > > don't recall any angst-afflicted parents (now they're ubiquitous),
> nor
> > > do I recall kids manifesting the
> > > conditions/behaviors--depression, hyperactivity (in
> settings/situations
> > > that demanded self-control, such as school or church), short
> attention
> > > spans, obesity, insolence--to anywhere near the extent they do
> today.
>
> > It's sort of interesting; cnn.com's lead headline right now is
> > 'Kids living better, but getting bigger.'
>
> Humph. "Better" is entirely subjective.
>
> > I don't think anyone would argue with you that obesity is on the
> > rise, that's well documented. For the other problems, though, I
> > can't say for sure whether you're right or wrong, but my training
> > leads me to distrust recollection as a measure of social change.
> > For instance, one reason parents are so afraid right now is that
> > they're convinced that child abductions and molestations are much
> > more common now than they were during their own childhoods
> > a few decades ago. This is just plain demonstrably untrue, but
> > that perception is controlling a lot of parental behavior.
>
> > So before we discuss the causes of these perceived changes, I'd
> > want some evidence other than your memory that they actually
> > exist.
>
> Look up stats for both legal (prescribed) and illegal drug usage. For
> divorce. For teen sexual activity/STD rates. (Okay, so contraceptives
> for kids
> weren't as readily obtainable in the '50s and '60s...) While you're at
> it, look up the stats (you might find some at the BLS; www.bls.gov) for
> the number (and demand) for social workers and psychologists. Either
> the
> "need" (demand) for those in the "caring" professions has increased
> exponentially OR individuals are going into these fields and
> *creating*/maintaining a (false) demand for their services. (And, lest
> anyone be tempted to trot out the tiresome "Well, we're simply better at
> diagnosing problems," explanation, forget about it; it's a load
> of--excuse
> me--crap.)

I would look up stats for drug usage, divorce, and sexual activity
if you'd said anything about those issues in the portion of you
post I was referencing. You didn't. You mentioned increased
incidence of depression, hyperactivity, short attention spans,
and insolence.

Increased reliance on mental-health professionals *might* be
evidence of an increasing rate of mental health problems, but
it might not. The most obvious alternative explanation I can
think of is that there isn't nearly as much of a stigma attached
to getting that kind of help, so people seek it more often. If
you combine that with the decrease in church attendance
(which deprives people of one historic source of quasi-
profesional counseling) it makes reliance on psychologists a
pretty indirect measure.

> Not at all! I'm assuming that virtually every parent (likely well in
> advance of becoming a parent) is going to hear about a choking incident.
> (Hard not to, of course, with 2500+ choking-related deaths a year!) And
> who
> hasn't, by adulthood, had a food-related choking incident *themselves*,
> i.e., one in which the possibility of passing out, if not dying, didn't
> briefly
> cross his/her mind? I think the average parent can extrapolate; if
> they'd stop to think about it, they'd realize that a bite of hot dog is
> similar to a piece of carrot, a chunk of fruit, or a piece of popcorn.
> (Fact is, people can and do choke on innumerable food and non-food
> items.) Saying "I didn't know (a kid could choke on a bite of hot dog)"
> is absurd; a believable statement would be, "I wasn't thinking (when I
> gave my toddler a hot dog)."

I think the reason people make this mistake is that hot dogs are
soft, while hard candy, peanuts, chunks of raw fruit, etc. are
all hard. Generally, soft food is safer, so I don't think it's
obvious that hot dogs should be grouped in the choking
risk category. I agree that the statement "I didn't know a kid could
choke on a bite of hot dog" is probably not literally true, as
anyone could choke on a hot dog in a bad moment. I suspect what
the parent meant was, "I didn't know that hot dogs were known
to be a particular choking risk for toddlers," and that was
probably true.

> which seems really unlikely.
> > I don't know anyone who strangled on a sweatshirt cord, and to
> > be honest, without the advice of professionals wouldn't have ever
> > given it a second thought. To an adult, sweatshirts, the
> > cords that hang from blinds, buckets with small amounts of
> > water in them, etc., just don't look all that dangerous. Hoping
> > that each parent will happen to read a story about a kid dying
> > from one of these hazards is really inefficient, aside from the
> > obvious defect that a kid has to die every once in a while to
> > serve as an object lesson for others to write articles and
> > tell stories about.
>
> It's impossible, not to mention costly (time-wise, = inefficient) for
> pediatricians to advise their patients' parents about every conceivable
> hazard, the awareness of which often arises from freak, isolated
> accidents. Wouldn't it be much, much better for them (pediatricians) to
> simply encourage (advise) parents to keep a close eye on their young
> kids at all times and to acquire some basic life-saving (e.g., CPR)
> skills? Wendy's drawstring strangling death would have been averted
> (had the family members present been keeping a closer eye on the girl),
> as would, I daresay, virtually every (especially non-food-related)
> choking death.

Of course it's not possible for a pediatrician to advise
parents of every conceivable hazard. That's a straw man, though,
because no one's saying they should. No, I don't think it would
be much, much better for peds to substitute advice to 'simply'
keep a close eye on kids at all times, because most parents do
this already, or think they do. I favor encouraging parents
to keep a close eye on their kids, AND alerting them to specific
common situations in which their kids may be in more danger than is
intuitively obvious.

It's really not practical for most parents to have their eyes
focused on their child for every waking moment of the child's
first few years. Unless one parent is willing to give up
eating, excreting, cooking, cleaning, etc. for four years, or
the child has two parents who don't work who can tag-team (and
of course no siblings, since they might require a moment of
attention), there will be times throughout the day when the
parent's attention is briefly on something else. That's why
virtually all advice to parents about this period stresses never
leaving the child unattended, but also eliminating as many
hazards as possible from the environment so that those
inevitable moments don't result in an injury or fatality.

Beth

July 28th 03, 05:43 AM

"PF Riley" > wrote in message
...
> On Tue, 22 Jul 2003 19:56:37 GMT, "JG" > wrote:

> >[Ray Bradbury-esque memoirs of a simpler time from JG omitted.]

> You don't honestly expect us to accept your own childhood memories as
> "proof" that the good ol' days really were better, now, do you?

Of course not. Based upon our memories, however, I think my childhood
was a heck of a lot more "typical" than Wendy's. (Was I shortchanged on
something, other than unpleasant memories, by NOT growing up in a
"dysfunctional" family?)

I offered, in a separate post,
(to which you haven't
responded), some indicators (drug usage, the prevalence of
psychologists/social workers, the rates of divorce and sexual activity
[including abortions and STDs], fitness [obesity]) of the quality of
life (for kids in general) now as compared to the '50s/'60s. Why don't
you address those?

JG

July 28th 03, 05:43 AM

"Elizabeth Reid" > wrote in message
om...
> "JG" > wrote in message
>...
> > "Elizabeth Reid" > wrote in message
> > om...

> > > > Though it makes me sound like a curmudgeonly fossil, I honestly
> > think
> > > > kids, *in general*, had it better in the '50s and '60s. I
certainly
> > > > don't recall any angst-afflicted parents (now they're
ubiquitous),
> > nor
> > > > do I recall kids manifesting the
> > > > conditions/behaviors--depression, hyperactivity (in
> > settings/situations
> > > > that demanded self-control, such as school or church), short
> > attention
> > > > spans, obesity, insolence--to anywhere near the extent they do
> > today.

> > > It's sort of interesting; cnn.com's lead headline right now is
> > > 'Kids living better, but getting bigger.'

> > Humph. "Better" is entirely subjective.

> > > I don't think anyone would argue with you that obesity is on the
> > > rise, that's well documented. For the other problems, though, I
> > > can't say for sure whether you're right or wrong, but my training
> > > leads me to distrust recollection as a measure of social change.
> > > For instance, one reason parents are so afraid right now is that
> > > they're convinced that child abductions and molestations are much
> > > more common now than they were during their own childhoods
> > > a few decades ago. This is just plain demonstrably untrue, but
> > > that perception is controlling a lot of parental behavior.

> > > So before we discuss the causes of these perceived changes, I'd
> > > want some evidence other than your memory that they actually
> > > exist.

> > Look up stats for both legal (prescribed) and illegal drug usage.
For
> > divorce. For teen sexual activity/STD rates. (Okay, so
contraceptives
> > for kids
> > weren't as readily obtainable in the '50s and '60s...) While you're
at
> > it, look up the stats (you might find some at the BLS; www.bls.gov)
for
> > the number (and demand) for social workers and psychologists.
Either
> > the
> > "need" (demand) for those in the "caring" professions has increased
> > exponentially OR individuals are going into these fields and
> > *creating*/maintaining a (false) demand for their services. (And,
lest
> > anyone be tempted to trot out the tiresome "Well, we're simply
better at
> > diagnosing problems," explanation, forget about it; it's a load
> > of--excuse
> > me--crap.)

> I would look up stats for drug usage, divorce, and sexual activity
> if you'd said anything about those issues in the portion of you
> post I was referencing. You didn't. You mentioned increased
> incidence of depression, hyperactivity, short attention spans,
> and insolence.

I don't think many (any?) psychologists would argue that there isn't a
correlation between various behaviors--drug usage, promiscuous sexual
activity, insolence, even short attention spans--and depression.
(Indeed, in some persons these behaviors are undoubtedly induced by
depression, while, conversely, these same behaviors, with a different
etiology, might induce depression in others--rather a case of "Which
came first?".)

> Increased reliance on mental-health professionals *might* be
> evidence of an increasing rate of mental health problems, but
> it might not. The most obvious alternative explanation I can
> think of is that there isn't nearly as much of a stigma attached
> to getting that kind of help, so people seek it more often.

I don't know where you are, but around here there's apparently still a
stigma attached to *kids* who receive counseling/therapy. Indeed, a
group of parents at one local school was so concerned about the
"post-lunch line up" (to receive various drugs, mostly psychotropics
such as Ritalin, I'd imagine) outside the school nurse's office that
they petitioned to have the practice changed. I'd argue that if the
stigma is abating, it's precisely because so many more are receiving
counseling these days; i.e., that the numbers--the increase--came first,
and it's only because so many are now "in therapy" that much of the
stigma is gone. Another factor accounting for some (hard to say how
much) of the increase might well the "pushing"--the marketing
(advertising) to potential users--of various mood-altering
(antidepressant) drugs by pharmaceutical companies. Their ads are
ubiquitous. [Surely I'm not the only one tired of seeing the
"moaning/groaning" UNhappy face--actually sort of an egg-shaped
blob--that turns happy (happy, HAPPY!) and bouncy once it's on whatever
drug (Zoloft, I believe) is being hyped. I wonder how many parents are
influenced by these ads: "You know, Mary just doesn't seem as merry
anymore. Maybe her moodiness is caused by depression. I'll make an
appointment for her to see her pediatrician; maybe he'll be able to give
her something like this Zoloft." (And concurrently recommend
counseling?)]

If
> you combine that with the decrease in church attendance
> (which deprives people of one historic source of quasi-
> profesional counseling) it makes reliance on psychologists a
> pretty indirect measure.

According to Barna (perhaps the most prominent surveyor of religious
trends), church attendance has been "on a roller coaster ride" since the
mid-'80s. (See
http://www.barna.org/cgi-bin/PageCategory.asp?CategoryID=10.) It's hard
to say how much of an impact (reduced) church attendance has had on the
rate at which people seek/obtain counseling from social workers and
psychologists.

Other factors that might have led (and be leading) to increased numbers
of kids being counseled/guided include increased coverage of the cost by
third-party payers (Tipper's efforts have paid off) and the increased
accessibility (apart from simply the increase in number) of
psychologists/social workers. As recently as 35-40 years ago, I daresay
the only "counselors" high schools had were "guidance counselors" whose
primary function (apparently) was to "counsel" students regarding such
things as which "track"--college prep, business/secretarial, general HS
education, trade--best suited them and to provide information (e.g.,
college/university catalogs for those intending to further their
education and the names of prospective employers for others) to assist
them in making choices. There were no "on site" social workers and
psychologists (at elementary and junior high schools as well as high
schools); if anything, school districts might have had one of each
working out of the central administration offices.

[...]

> > It's impossible, not to mention costly (time-wise, = inefficient)
for
> > pediatricians to advise their patients' parents about every
conceivable
> > hazard, the awareness of which often arises from freak, isolated
> > accidents. Wouldn't it be much, much better for them
(pediatricians) to
> > simply encourage (advise) parents to keep a close eye on their young
> > kids at all times and to acquire some basic life-saving (e.g., CPR)
> > skills? Wendy's drawstring strangling death would have been averted
> > (had the family members present been keeping a closer eye on the
girl),
> > as would, I daresay, virtually every (especially non-food-related)
> > choking death.

> Of course it's not possible for a pediatrician to advise
> parents of every conceivable hazard. That's a straw man, though,
> because no one's saying they should.

I rather think PF *would*, if he could (i.e., if he didn't have time
constraints); I believe he has a terribly overblown sense of duty.

No, I don't think it would
> be much, much better for peds to substitute advice to 'simply'
> keep a close eye on kids at all times, ...

"Better" from the perspective of *efficiency*, not necessarily
effectiveness.

because most parents do
> this already, or think they do. I favor encouraging parents
> to keep a close eye on their kids, AND alerting them to specific
> common situations in which their kids may be in more danger than is
> intuitively obvious.

I think perhaps the ideal solution would be for pediatricians to
recommend (or, better yet, *give* to parents...passing on the cost, of
course <g>) a good, basic "how to raise an infant/child" book. (The AAP
itself even publishes such a book--"Caring for Your Baby and Young
Child:
Birth to Age 5"--as well as a number of other "guide" books (see
https://www.aap.org/sforms/parentresourceguide.htm#5). While there's
no guarantee parents would read them, such a practice would avoid both
stigmatizing "idiot" parents and being perceived as condescending by
"competent" parents.

[...]

JG

Elizabeth Reid

July 29th 03, 05:39 PM

"JG" > wrote in message >...
> "Elizabeth Reid" > wrote in message
> om...

> > I would look up stats for drug usage, divorce, and sexual activity
> > if you'd said anything about those issues in the portion of you
> > post I was referencing. You didn't. You mentioned increased
> > incidence of depression, hyperactivity, short attention spans,
> > and insolence.
>
> I don't think many (any?) psychologists would argue that there isn't a
> correlation between various behaviors--drug usage, promiscuous sexual
> activity, insolence, even short attention spans--and depression.
> (Indeed, in some persons these behaviors are undoubtedly induced by
> depression, while, conversely, these same behaviors, with a different
> etiology, might induce depression in others--rather a case of "Which
> came first?".)

Sure, there are correlations between these things. It's still
really poor evidence for your original assertions. Kids are more
insolent and hyperactive today - as proof, here are some
statistics on teen sexual activity!

> Other factors that might have led (and be leading) to increased numbers
> of kids being counseled/guided include...

Right. So how is increased counseling evidence of increasing
disorder incidence?

> I think perhaps the ideal solution would be for pediatricians to
> recommend (or, better yet, *give* to parents...passing on the cost, of
> course <g>) a good, basic "how to raise an infant/child" book. (The AAP
> itself even publishes such a book--"Caring for Your Baby and Young
> Child:
> Birth to Age 5"--as well as a number of other "guide" books (see
> https://www.aap.org/sforms/parentresourceguide.htm#5). While there's
> no guarantee parents would read them, such a practice would avoid both
> stigmatizing "idiot" parents and being perceived as condescending by
> "competent" parents.

Stop the presses: we agree!

I'd be fine with that, especialy if the ped also said, "... and feel
free to ask me about any safety concerns," leaving the door open
for parents to get more advice if they wanted it. I don't care
whether the doc speaks the words, I just want the parents to
get the information they need. It might be more effective to
distill the basic advice into a pamphlet (shorter than a book
easier to read) but that's just qa uibble.

I'm curious, though. Do you have any reason to think that anyone
besides you perceives orally delivered safety advice as condescending?
I'm hypereducated about some baby stuff (feeding practices for one
thing) and I've never been insulted when my son's doctor has told
me things I already know, even things I think are common knowlege.
He's not a mind reader, and he doesn't have any way of knowing
which factoids I've encountered and which I haven't. I'm able
to say, "Thanks, I'd heard that," without it ruining my whole
day.

And I don't get why giving a basic book is not insulting, while
giving basic advice is. It'd be a time-saver, sure, but you seem
to be wavering back and forth between objecting to advice because
it's inefficient and objecting to it because it's insulting.
Your solutions to the inefficiency problem seem to up the
insult factor, if anything.

Beth

Roger Schlafly

July 29th 03, 06:25 PM

"Elizabeth Reid" > wrote
> I'm curious, though. Do you have any reason to think that anyone
> besides you perceives orally delivered safety advice as condescending?
> I'm hypereducated about some baby stuff (feeding practices ...
> And I don't get why giving a basic book is not insulting, while
> giving basic advice is. ...

Peds are trained in medicine, not safety. You probably know more
about safety than your local ped. If I take my kid to a ped, then I
am looking for medical advice, not safety advice. Safety advice
is more reliably obtained from books and other sources. The safety
advice from a ped is apt to be silly, wrong, and unwanted.

July 29th 03, 11:25 PM

"Elizabeth Reid" > wrote in message
m...
> "JG" > wrote in message
>...
> > "Elizabeth Reid" > wrote in message
> > om...

> > > I would look up stats for drug usage, divorce, and sexual activity
> > > if you'd said anything about those issues in the portion of you
> > > post I was referencing. You didn't. You mentioned increased
> > > incidence of depression, hyperactivity, short attention spans,
> > > and insolence.

> > I don't think many (any?) psychologists would argue that there isn't
a
> > correlation between various behaviors--drug usage, promiscuous
sexual
> > activity, insolence, even short attention spans--and depression.
> > (Indeed, in some persons these behaviors are undoubtedly induced by
> > depression, while, conversely, these same behaviors, with a
different
> > etiology, might induce depression in others--rather a case of "Which
> > came first?".)

> Sure, there are correlations between these things. It's still
> really poor evidence for your original assertions. Kids are more
> insolent and hyperactive today - as proof, here are some
> statistics on teen sexual activity!

Rather a straw man, wouldn't you say? Who's saying there's a
correlation between insolence and/or hyperactivity and sexual activity?
Not I. I believe I asserted that there's a correlation between various
BEHAVIORS (insolence, hyperactivity, and sexual activity) and DEPRESSION
(which, of course, is NOT a "behavior") and that kids are being
increasingly diagnosed with depression.

Both insolence and hyperactivity are *subjective*, so there are no
objective tests for them. Nevertheless, psychiatrists have invented
"disorders" for them (Oppositional Defiant Disorder [ODD] and ADHD,
respectively) and the number/rate of kids diagnosed with both has risen.
(And, to repeat myself, it's not simply a case of "Well, we're just
better at diagnosing them--picking up the signs--these days.") Teenage
sexual activity *can* be measured objectively, but it's not possible to
compare the '50s/'60s with today; statistics weren't kept until the
early '70s. I'm fairly certain, however, that the rate of sexual
activity is higher today.

> > Other factors that might have led (and be leading) to increased
numbers
> > of kids being counseled/guided include...

> Right. So how is increased counseling evidence of increasing
> disorder incidence?

It's not! The "disorders" are myths! (The *behaviors* are quite real.)
My assertion is simply that increasing numbers of (paranoid, gullible,
spineless) parents have been told/persuaded that their kids have one
"disorder" or another (so Mikey's or Tiffany's behavior IS NOT
THEIR--parents'--FAULT) but that--fear not!--"help" (in the form of
counseling) is available. An interesting question to know the answer to
would be "Which came first, the increase in the number/rate of persons
going into the "helping"--counseling--professions, or the increase in
the number/rate of kids being diagnosed with behavioral disorders?" (I
believe the former. At the risk of ****ing off many psychologists and
social workers, I think these disciplines [majors] are about as UNtough
as "education" and hence have attracted many college students since
[approximately] the late '70s/early '80s.) To support the increase in
"counselors," fresh meat, er, new patients, must be created (diagnosed).

> > I think perhaps the ideal solution would be for pediatricians to
> > recommend (or, better yet, *give* to parents...passing on the cost,
of
> > course <g>) a good, basic "how to raise an infant/child" book. (The
AAP
> > itself even publishes such a book--"Caring for Your Baby and Young
> > Child:
> > Birth to Age 5"--as well as a number of other "guide" books (see
> > https://www.aap.org/sforms/parentresourceguide.htm#5). While
there's
> > no guarantee parents would read them, such a practice would avoid
both
> > stigmatizing "idiot" parents and being perceived as condescending by
> > "competent" parents.

> Stop the presses: we agree!

Hallelujah! (Keeling over. :-D)

> I'd be fine with that, especialy if the ped also said, "... and feel
> free to ask me about any safety concerns," leaving the door open
> for parents to get more advice if they wanted it. I don't care
> whether the doc speaks the words, I just want the parents to
> get the information they need. It might be more effective to
> distill the basic advice into a pamphlet (shorter than a book
> easier to read) but that's just qa uibble.

Whoa! It was nice while it lasted...<g> I think safety and health are
two separate matters, though I have no more objection to a pediatrician
saying "... and feel free to ask me about any safety concerns" than I do
to "...feel free to ask me about landscaping...football...political
candidates...the weather..." For one thing, the "average" pediatrician
has no more "expertise" about, say, guns, than a neighbor who hunts (who
probably actually has MORE), and he/she certainly has less than a
(licensed) gun dealer. The same could be said for just about
anything--car seats, high chairs, bicycle/skateboard helmets/pads...
Safety information about all these things is widely available; our local
police department, for example, conducts regular car seat "clinics"
(usually held in store/mall parking lots) in addition to maintaining a
widely advertised "drop in any time" (to ask about/get assistance with
car seats) policy. Perhaps the best (and most obvious) source for
safety information is manufacturers themselves; indeed, an argument
might even be made that people ignore the "WARNING" information page(s)
in owners' manuals simply because warnings/disclaimers are so ubiquitous
these days. (How many smokers can recite, verbatim, all the different
warnings on cigarette packs? Even 5%? How many drinkers peruse the
label on wine bottles?)

Re: pamphlets for parents. I believe the AAP has produced a number of
these that can either be ordered (or downloaded), copied, and given to
parents.

> I'm curious, though. Do you have any reason to think that anyone
> besides you perceives orally delivered safety advice as condescending?

I actually *know* a lot of people who do. (Admittedly, I'm the one
who's always brought up the subject. <g>)

> I'm hypereducated about some baby stuff (feeding practices for one
> thing) and I've never been insulted when my son's doctor has told
> me things I already know, even things I think are common knowlege.
> He's not a mind reader, and he doesn't have any way of knowing
> which factoids I've encountered and which I haven't. I'm able
> to say, "Thanks, I'd heard that," without it ruining my whole
> day.

You're more tolerant than I. We've found a pediatrician who doesn't ask
"MYOB," non-health-related questions (e.g., "Do you have a gun in the
house?"); she simply asks, when we go in for the annual summer physical
(my daughter hasn't been ill enough to warrant a trip to the doctor's
office in ...sheesh, I can't remember, maybe 4 years), "Been healthy?
Any questions or concerns about diet? Getting enough sleep...exercise?
How's school going?"

> And I don't get why giving a basic book is not insulting, while
> giving basic advice is. It'd be a time-saver, sure, but you seem
> to be wavering back and forth between objecting to advice because
> it's inefficient and objecting to it because it's insulting.

I wouldn't be insulted by receiving a book/pamphlet(s) at an initial
"get-to-know-each-other" pre-natal visit/interview (or at the first
post-natal visit, if no pre-natal meeting took place); I'd simply assume
that handing out such information was routine--that *every* new parent
was given the exact same stuff (i.e., I wouldn't expect ANY physician to
glean enough information about a person's competency from such a visit
to know whether the information was appropriate/necessary or not). If,
however, the book/pamphlet(s) was/were handed to me after a few visits,
I'd probably wonder, "Why is this guy/woman giving ME this? Does he/she
think I'm a "bad" (incompetent) parent?" (And I WOULD be insulted).

> Your solutions to the inefficiency problem seem to up the
> insult factor, if anything.

Not if the FYI stuff were given out first thing, before expectant/new
parents and the physician had adequate opportunity to get to know each
other.

JG

If you lack the iron and the fizz to take control of your own life, then
the gods will repay your weakness by having a grin or two at your
expense. Should you fail to pilot your own ship, don't be surprised at
what inappropriate port you find yourself docked.
--Tom Robbins

Bill Fischer

July 30th 03, 01:35 AM

Elizabeth Reid wrote:

> I'd be fine with that, especialy if the ped also said, "... and feel
> free to ask me about any safety concerns," leaving the door open
> for parents to get more advice if they wanted it. I don't care
> whether the doc speaks the words, I just want the parents to
> get the information they need. It might be more effective to
> distill the basic advice into a pamphlet (shorter than a book
> easier to read) but that's just qa uibble.

Fine. You and other like-minded parents need to insist that your health
plan and your medical group extend the time for well-child visits.
Demand it.

Many administrator doctors are internists or family physicians. I have
heard them refer to pediatrics as veterinary medicine. A common comment
is: "You really don't need much time with runny noses." Administrators
see pediatric care as a "Cost Center," not a "Profit Center." And they
want to save money. Why, I am sure they ask, would one need much time
with well babies?; they are after all well.

A few years back, I received templates for well-child checks from one of
the large health plans. Of course, the health plan wanted a carefully
documented history and a similarly documented physical exam. Thereafter,
came a long list of topics for "anticipatory guidance."

I called one of the health plan RNs who designed the forms. I told her
that all of the suggestions were laudable. But I could never complete
all those topics in the 10-minute exam allotted.

"Oh," she replied, "I expect that those examinations will last 30
minutes or more."

The whole time I have been a pediatrician, I have NEVER had 30 minutes
or more set aside for well-child or annual physical examinations.

If I ever demanded that, the administors would first roar in laughter
and then announce the name of my replacement.

If enough parents and patients demanded it, health plans and
administrator doctors would see that you got it.

Bill Fischer

July 30th 03, 08:47 PM

Roger Schlafly wrote:

> Peds are trained in medicine, not safety. You probably know more
> about safety than your local ped. If I take my kid to a ped, then I
> am looking for medical advice, not safety advice. Safety advice
> is more reliably obtained from books and other sources. The safety
> advice from a ped is apt to be silly, wrong, and unwanted.
>

You are correct that pediatricians receive more training in medicine
than in safety.

In this century, the tables have turned on us. Far fewer children die of
disease than are killed or maimed by accidents. You'd be surprised by
the number of parents in this country who see their children die after
being left in a parked car in the heat of the sun or after burns from
house fires that might have been prevented if the smoke detector had
been installed. Accidents are the leading cause of death in children.

Many doctors do not feel that counseling about safety and accident
prevention belongs in their domain.

Like you, many parents resent hearing advice about safety and accident
prevention.

You'd be surprised by the number of parents who ignore or refuse to read
information about home safety found in their doctors' office.

My own feeling is that parents should be offered classes about safety
and accident prevention, classes given by pediatric nurse practitioners.
Insurance plans will not reimburse medical groups for such classes. And
few parents elect to attend them.

Bill Fischer

July 31st 03, 06:58 PM

Roger Schlafly wrote:
> I ignore the info on gardening also. Peds are not likely to have any
> special knowledge about smoke detectors.

The specific data on accidents and deaths are available to you on the
Internet. Try the CDC and other US Government websites.

Talk to your local fire department. The firefighters will tell you that
smoke detectors often don't work because they haven't been installed.
Another reason they don't work is because the batteries have been removed.

This all seems very logical to you and to me. Kids still die each year
in house fires. Most deaths are from smoke inhalation and not from
flame. Most deaths could have been prevented.

You'd be surprised by the number of parents who wish after the fact that
they had taken preemptive action. "If only someone had told me," they
frequently say.

Again, more children in the United States die each year from accidents
than die from disease.

Elizabeth Reid

July 31st 03, 07:06 PM

"Roger Schlafly" > wrote in message >...
> "Elizabeth Reid" > wrote
> > I'm curious, though. Do you have any reason to think that anyone
> > besides you perceives orally delivered safety advice as condescending?
> > I'm hypereducated about some baby stuff (feeding practices ...
> > And I don't get why giving a basic book is not insulting, while
> > giving basic advice is. ...
>
> Peds are trained in medicine, not safety. You probably know more
> about safety than your local ped. If I take my kid to a ped, then I
> am looking for medical advice, not safety advice. Safety advice
> is more reliably obtained from books and other sources. The safety
> advice from a ped is apt to be silly, wrong, and unwanted.

Okay, JG, Roger certainly agrees with you. Are you sure you're
pleased about this? :-)

Anyway, yes, peds are trained in medicine. However, the whole
point of those hateful bulletins that the AAP is issuing is to
educate peds about safety, so that the knowlege can be
passed on to clients.

Can you give me a sample of safety advice commonly given by
pediatricians that is *not* consistent with that found in
books and other sources?

Beth

Elizabeth Reid

July 31st 03, 07:18 PM

"JG" > wrote in message >...
> "Elizabeth Reid" > wrote in message
> m...

> Whoa! It was nice while it lasted...<g> I think safety and health are
> two separate matters, though I have no more objection to a pediatrician
> saying "... and feel free to ask me about any safety concerns" than I do
> to "...feel free to ask me about landscaping...football...political
> candidates...the weather..." For one thing, the "average" pediatrician
> has no more "expertise" about, say, guns, than a neighbor who hunts (who
> probably actually has MORE), and he/she certainly has less than a
> (licensed) gun dealer.

As I just said to Roger, I disagree with this. If the pediatrican
is actually reading those statements by the AAP, he may be
considerably more up to date on safety than the average person.
I don't think a ped has any more hands-on advice than anyone
else (as in, I wouldn't ask him to help me install my car seat,
or a trigger lock on my firearm) but he might well be more aware
of, say, foods that pose a higher-than-average choking risk,
which is what we've been talking about.

> > I'm curious, though. Do you have any reason to think that anyone
> > besides you perceives orally delivered safety advice as condescending?
>
> I actually *know* a lot of people who do. (Admittedly, I'm the one
> who's always brought up the subject. <g>)

Shocking!

To be serious, if you start the conversation by talking about
how annoying you find this, I'm not sure I'd trust what your
acquaintances tell you. If I get into a conversation with a
friend who tells me at length how irritating he finds it that
sometimes people wear ugly hats, I'm likely to say, "Yeah, those
ugly hats are a problem. I saw someone wearing one just yesterday."
Doesn't mean it's actually something that bothers me on an
ongoing basis.

> I wouldn't be insulted by receiving a book/pamphlet(s) at an initial
> "get-to-know-each-other" pre-natal visit/interview (or at the first
> post-natal visit, if no pre-natal meeting took place); I'd simply assume
> that handing out such information was routine--that *every* new parent
> was given the exact same stuff (i.e., I wouldn't expect ANY physician to
> glean enough information about a person's competency from such a visit
> to know whether the information was appropriate/necessary or not). If,
> however, the book/pamphlet(s) was/were handed to me after a few visits,
> I'd probably wonder, "Why is this guy/woman giving ME this? Does he/she
> think I'm a "bad" (incompetent) parent?" (And I WOULD be insulted).

Ah, okay. Maybe the reason I've never been insulted by my
ped giving me advice is that it never would have occurred to me
to think it was anything other than routine. When we saw him
for my son's 2-month well-baby checkup and he said, "No solid food,
now, until after his 4-month appointment," I didn't think, "Why
is he telling me this?? Does he think I'm a horrible person
who would feed pizza and gel candy to my infant??! How dare he
cast aspersions on my competence!!!" I just figured he tells
all the parents that at the 2-month appointment.

Beth

August 1st 03, 01:46 AM

"Elizabeth Reid" > wrote in message
om...
> "Roger Schlafly" > wrote in message
>...
> > "Elizabeth Reid" > wrote

> Okay, JG, Roger certainly agrees with you. Are you sure you're
> pleased about this? :-)

Put it this way: I think my chances of avoiding injury/surviving just
about any "safety" situation would be better with Roger than with
virtually any pediatrician, certainly PF, CBI, or Utz. <g>

> Anyway, yes, peds are trained in medicine. However, the whole
> point of those hateful bulletins that the AAP is issuing is to
> educate peds about safety, so that the knowlege can be
> passed on to clients.

> Can you give me a sample of safety advice commonly given by
> pediatricians that is *not* consistent with that found in
> books and other sources?

That's the point; it usually *is* consistent with the info from other
sources and hence is redundant/superfluous. Somehow (some) physicians
apparently believe they have more "power"--influence--regarding certain
subjects than even persons who deal directly with those subjects daily
(e.g., lawn mower safety--lawn mower manufacturers, fires--firefighters,
guns--gun dealers).

Speaking of guns :o)... The advice imparted by pediatricians (e.g., "The
AAP recommends that pediatricians...urge parents who possess guns,
especially handguns, to remove them from the home";
http://www.aap.org/advocacy/archives/aprfir.htm) is totally inconsistent
with that of a number of prominent criminologists, who've repeatedly
demonstrated that gun ownership actually reduces crime.

JG

August 1st 03, 01:47 AM

"Bill Fischer" > wrote in message
...

> Roger Schlafly wrote:
> > I ignore the info on gardening also. Peds are not likely to have any
> > special knowledge about smoke detectors.

> The specific data on accidents and deaths are available to you on the
> Internet. Try the CDC and other US Government websites.

> Talk to your local fire department. The firefighters will tell you
that
> smoke detectors often don't work because they haven't been installed.
> Another reason they don't work is because the batteries have been
removed.

> This all seems very logical to you and to me. Kids still die each year
> in house fires. Most deaths are from smoke inhalation and not from
> flame. Most deaths could have been prevented.

Undoubtedly. Information about fire prevention/safety, including the
benefit of smoke detectors, is widely available. One source is the
Internet (go to google.com, enter "home fire safety," and see how many
hits you get); for those who don't have access, there are PSAs (more
frequent, it seems, around the time we switch to/from Daylight Saving
Time), news reports (it seems every major house fire--one in which
someone is seriously injured or killed--is followed by newspaper and TV
interviews of a fire department spokesperson discussing how the
injuries/deaths might have been prevented), insurance company info (I
know I get a discount for having smoke detectors) and school programs
that teach kids (at least those K-5) not only what to do in the event of
a house fire, but also how to prevent them. (I remember my older
daughter coming home one day, adamant that we [RIGHT NOW!!!] devise a
"fire escape plan"; the literature handed out by the dressed-as-a-clown
fireman also talked about smoke detectors.)

> You'd be surprised by the number of parents who wish after the fact
that
> they had taken preemptive action. "If only someone had told me," they
> frequently say.

Not an unusual response to any tragic event. "Someone," likely several
"someones"--the media, the fire department--DID tell them; they simply
didn't listen and/or follow the recommended precautions. What makes you
think (apparently) that they'd be any more likely to take action in
response to a physician's telling them? (Gee, look how many potatoes
have jumped off their couches and started dieting/excersing! <g>) Put
handouts and/or posters in your waiting room; just don't ask *me* "Do
you have working smoke detectors?"

> Again, more children in the United States die each year from accidents
> than die from disease.

....Except for those < 1 year old.

The majority of these fatal-to-kids accidents are *automobile*
accidents, many of which are caused by the actions of another vehicle's
driver. Sometimes no amount of "defensive" driving, or of taking
recommended advice (e.g., having and using properly installed car
seats), can prevent a fatality.

JG

August 1st 03, 02:23 AM

"Elizabeth Reid" > wrote in message
om...

> "JG" > wrote in message
>...

> > "Elizabeth Reid" > wrote in message
> > m...

[...]

> > > I'm curious, though. Do you have any reason to think that anyone
> > > besides you perceives orally delivered safety advice as
condescending?

> > I actually *know* a lot of people who do. (Admittedly, I'm the one
> > who's always brought up the subject. <g>)

> Shocking!

> To be serious, if you start the conversation by talking about
> how annoying you find this, I'm not sure I'd trust what your
> acquaintances tell you. If I get into a conversation with a
> friend who tells me at length how irritating he finds it that
> sometimes people wear ugly hats, I'm likely to say, "Yeah, those
> ugly hats are a problem. I saw someone wearing one just yesterday."
> Doesn't mean it's actually something that bothers me on an
> ongoing basis.

I think we're all familiar with these sorts of "white lies." <g> I've
found agreeing with some people can be effective when I have no interest
whatsoever in a topic they bring up; it tends to elicit an "Oh,
okay...Glad we agree...Nothing left to discuss, I s'pose...Next topic"
reaction. Lying to physicians (despite PF's apparent belief that doing
so should result in a parent going straight to Hell <g>)can have the
same (oft desired) effect of cutting short a discussion; I've already
decided to follow Roger's example should a pediatrician ever ask, "Do
you have a gun in your house?" Me: "No way!"

My disdain for pediatricians who routinely dispense condescending advice
has only come up when physicians/pediatricians are being discussed for
some other reason (e.g., the medical office in the nearest town--about
2.5 miles away--just held a reception for townspeople to "meet our (the)
new pediatrician"; someone --not I!--started talking about "annoyances,"
such as having to wait >15 minutes for scheduled appointments. I then
put in my $.02 regarding pediatricians' attitudes towards parents).

JG

Wendy Marsden

August 1st 03, 04:50 AM

JG > wrote:

> My disdain for pediatricians who routinely dispense condescending advice

First of all, you truly have no idea how many stupid people physicians see
on a daily basis. Condescending advice to you may seem like gems of
wisdom to someone else. Your inability to grasp the concept that other
people might have different needs than you is clear from your writing.

Second, if you do not introduce your (real) self to your ped you stand
a good chance of them not knowing that you are an intelligent, informed
exception to the general rule (of idiots for clients) so they won't know
to take you seriously when you show up with a sick kid. I don't know
about you, but when my kids are sick I dress in stained, torn sweatpants
and have a wild, haggard, sleepless look in my eye that doesn't say,
"sophisticated educated person" to the casual observor.

Third, if you have a gun in the house with little kids and don't know
enough to discuss safe gun care then you really DO need the condescending
talk from some authority figure. Trigger lock the gun and lock the ammo
separately, idiot.

Wendy

Roger Schlafly

August 1st 03, 06:53 AM

"PF Riley" > wrote
> >First of all, you truly have no idea how many stupid people physicians
see
> >on a daily basis.
> I have stressed this point many times, yet she still dares to call ME
> a "pompous ass." She's by far the most arrogant poster on here.

You think that all your patients are stupid, but that JG is arrogant?!

Roger Schlafly

August 1st 03, 07:06 AM

"Elizabeth Reid" > wrote
> > Try looking at the advice on TV, swimming, guns, bikes, cars, etc.
> > It is foolish and wacky.
> I had time to look up some of the AAP's policy statements on these
subjects.
> On TV: The AAP recommends limiting the amount of TV your child watches,
> not permitting TV watching during meals, and knowing what shows
> are being watched and watching them together if possible. Those nuts!

It says more than that. Last I checked, it said that kids under age 2
should never watch TV at all. I don't agree with that. When my kid
was 1, she really enjoyed watching the Teletubbies. The show is
well-suited and appropriate for 1-year-olds. I was a little concerned
about the subversive content of the show. (We still have a Po doll
that says "faggot, faggot, faggot".) But on balance, I think that it is
a worthwhile program for a 1-year-old.

August 1st 03, 08:30 AM

"Wendy Marsden" >, in message
, yammered...
> JG > wrote:

> > My disdain for pediatricians who routinely dispense condescending
advice

> First of all, you truly have no idea how many stupid people physicians
see
> on a daily basis.

Actually, I do.

Condescending advice to you may seem like gems of
> wisdom to someone else. Your inability to grasp the concept that
other
> people might have different needs than you is clear from your writing.

....And it appears, from a synthesis of your posts, that the concept that
some people actually embrace personal responsibility, confidently (and
competently) take charge of their and their children's lives (including
their health), and have better things to do than dwell on every misdeed
or affront, real or merely hypothesized, that befalls them or others (or
befell their ancestors) is incomprehensible to you.

> Second, if you do not introduce your (real) self to your ped you stand
> a good chance of them not knowing that you are an intelligent,
informed
> exception to the general rule (of idiots for clients) so they won't
know
> to take you seriously when you show up with a sick kid. I don't know
> about you, but when my kids are sick I dress in stained, torn
sweatpants
> and have a wild, haggard, sleepless look in my eye that doesn't say,
> "sophisticated educated person" to the casual observor.

Just about everybody gets the same, "real" me. I make an exception for
salespeople; I will play dumb--occassionally *really* dumb--when I'm
shopping for something relatively expensive, e.g., a vehicle, jewelry, a
major appliance, or furniture. I'll previously have researched the
various options available, and I'll have a good idea how much the item
in which I'm interested is worth. Playing dumb in these situations
(asking lots of questions) is a great way to determine how ethical the
salesperson is; one too glib, especially if he/she gives patently wrong
answers, won't get a sale from me.

> Third, if you have a gun in the house with little kids...

By "you," do you mean me, specifically, or an indefinitely specified
person (one)? I'll assume the former, and also that you meant *young*
kids. My little (petite), still-at-home daughter is 16.

and don't know
> enough to discuss safe gun care then you really DO need the
condescending
> talk from some authority figure.

Why in the world would you assume that I wouldn't "know enough" to
discuss gun safety? I think I could probably teach >95% of
pediatricians more about guns, including safe storage/use practices,
than they currently know. (I've been debating whether to take a course
to become an N.R.A.-certified Personal Protection Instructor; I think
many women would welcome having a female instructor.)

Trigger lock the gun and lock the ammo
> separately, idiot.

Gee, aren't you charming tonight! <g> And this bit of unsolicited
advice comes from... Something you read? Gun control advocates ("The
Brady Bunch")? Personal expertise? Your kids' pediatrician?

Sorry, Wendy; such a practice could easily prove pernicious (to *us*) in
the event of a break-in. My gun's safely stored. And loaded. (I'll
consider a trigger lock if/when I get a concealed carry permit for it.)

JG

August 1st 03, 08:31 AM

"PF Riley" > wrote in message
...

> On Fri, 01 Aug 2003 01:23:28 GMT, "JG" > wrote:

> >Lying to physicians (despite PF's apparent belief that doing
> >so should result in a parent going straight to Hell <g>)can have the
> >same (oft desired) effect of cutting short a discussion; I've already
> >decided to follow Roger's example should a pediatrician ever ask, "Do
> >you have a gun in your house?" Me: "No way!"

> My problem with parents lying to me is that it can compromise the
> outcome of medical treatment for the child. I made no recommendations
> for any punishment, secular or supernatural, for the parent.

And just how would lying about owning a gun "compromise the outcome of
medical treatment"? Where did you get the idea that I'd lie about
something regarding *health*, PF?

> By the way, since you do acknowledge that you feel it is OK to lie in
> certain situations, this would explain why you ignored the following
> comment from me posted on 7/19/03, as clearly you are contributing
> yourself to the decline of society.

> JG, listing factors that have contributed to the decline, in her
> opinion, of our modern society to the point that "kids, *in general*,
> had it better in the '50s and '60s" compared to today:

> >the evolution of a society in which traditional values (e.g.,
> >honesty/truthfulness, integrity) are increasingly perceived as being
> >situationally relative;

> My reply:

> >Ah, like, say, asserting, as you and Roger have, that it's OK to lie
> >to your doctor (as opposed to simply refusing to answer) if he asks a
> >question which you believe is none of his business?

There are some situations in which lying *is* acceptable; one is when
someone asks a totally *improper* (e.g., none of his/her business)
question. There are also questions that call for a "yes" or "no"
answer, yet answering simply (only) "yes" or "no" is inadequate: "So,
PF, are you still beating your wife?"

JG

PF Riley

August 1st 03, 09:28 AM

On Fri, 01 Aug 2003 07:05:43 GMT, "Roger Schlafly"
> wrote:

>"PF Riley" > wrote
>> >decided to follow Roger's example should a pediatrician ever ask, "Do
>> >you have a gun in your house?" Me: "No way!"
>> JG, listing factors that have contributed to the decline, in her
>> opinion, of our modern society to the point that "kids, *in general*,
>> had it better in the '50s and '60s" compared to today:
>
>She contributed to the decline by not wanting to answer nosey
>questions?! In the 50s and 60s, people had more respect for
>the personal privacy and autonomy of others. Peds didn't
>ask parents such nosey and irrelevant questions. No one has
>an obligation to answer such questions.

Please stop replying to my posts. You are a complete moron and never
have anything useful to say, even if you do manage to partly
comprehend the postings of others.

PF

Roger Schlafly

August 1st 03, 09:50 AM

"PF Riley" > wrote
> So, yet again you are acknowledging that you feel, in certain defined
> circumstances, that lying is OK.

Yes, of course. Everyone thinks that. If someone passes you on
the street, and says "how are you?", do you feel compelled to
give a complete description?

When I goto a physician, I am there to get info and treatment
out of him. I am under no obligation to tell him the truth about
anything.

Suppose, for example, I've already done my homework and
I want a particular prescription drug. Then I'll just tell the
physician whatever is convenient to get him to write the
prescription that I want. Usually I'll want some advice as well,
but if he asks for my whole medical history and it is not relevant,
then I'll lie about it. Telling the full truth might just be an obstruction
to getting the treatment that I want.

Elizabeth Reid

August 1st 03, 01:57 PM

"Roger Schlafly" > wrote in message >...
> "Elizabeth Reid" > wrote
> > > Try looking at the advice on TV, swimming, guns, bikes, cars, etc.
> > > It is foolish and wacky.

> > On TV: The AAP recommends limiting the amount of TV your child watches,
> > not permitting TV watching during meals, and knowing what shows
> > are being watched and watching them together if possible. Those nuts!
>
> It says more than that. Last I checked, it said that kids under age 2
> should never watch TV at all. I don't agree with that. When my kid
> was 1, she really enjoyed watching the Teletubbies. The show is
> well-suited and appropriate for 1-year-olds. I was a little concerned
> about the subversive content of the show. (We still have a Po doll
> that says "faggot, faggot, faggot".) But on balance, I think that it is
> a worthwhile program for a 1-year-old.

Let's see. I checked, and the exact words of that particular
policy statement were:

"The first 2 years of life are especially important in the growth and
development of your child's brain. During this time, children need
good, positive interaction with other children and adults. Too much
television can negatively affect early brain development. This is
especially true at younger ages, when learning to talk and play with
others is so important.

Until more research is done about the effects of TV on very young
children, the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) does not recommend
television for children age 2 or younger. For older children, the
Academy recommends no more than 1 to 2 hours per day of educational,
nonviolent programs."

This is splitting hairs somewhat, but they don't say, "should not
watch TV" or "we recommend against TV". What they say is, we don't
positively recommend TV. This seems pretty reasonable to me, given
that it's unnecessary and in large quantities potentially
harmful.

So your point is... any advice you disagree with, however slightly
(I doubt the framers of that passage would say that a few hours
of Teletubbies a week is likely to be really harmful) is 'foolish
and wacky'? And I'd still like to see those 'books and other
sources' that advise that any amount of TV for any age is fine.

Beth

Mark Probert

August 1st 03, 04:52 PM

Tsu Dho Nimh wrote:

> "Roger Schlafly" > wrote:
>
>
>>When I goto a physician, I am there to get info and treatment
>>out of him. I am under no obligation to tell him the truth about
>>anything.
>
>
> Have you ever considered that your health may depend on it? Or
> the health of your family, neighbors and community?
>
>
>>Suppose, for example, I've already done my homework and
>>I want a particular prescription drug. Then I'll just tell the
>>physician whatever is convenient to get him to write the
>>prescription that I want.
>
>
> The same method used by junkies to try to get narcotics scrips,
> being used by a man who claims he's upholding the moral fabric of
> society: lying about the symptoms.
>
> If you fail to mention, or lie about, a factor that is critical
> to the success of the drug, who will you blame?
>
> If you don't have the condition you think you have, and fail to
> mention, or lie about, a detail that would point the doctor in
> the right direction, who will you blame?
>
>
>>Usually I'll want some advice as well,
>>but if he asks for my whole medical history and it is not relevant,
>
>
> And how do you know what is relevant?
>
>
>>then I'll lie about it. Telling the full truth might just be an obstruction
>>to getting the treatment that I want.
>
>
> Thanks for revealing your true moral superiority.

A few years back we did an investigation of a wrongful death/medical
malpractice suit.

The decedent had lied tothe doctor about their medical history, and, as
a result, died.

Left three kids, bills, mortgage, and a wife who could not work.

Bill Fischer

August 1st 03, 05:24 PM

Roger Schlafly wrote:
> "PF Riley" > wrote

> When I goto a physician, I am there to get info and treatment
> out of him. I am under no obligation to tell him the truth about
> anything.

Roger,

This falls under the category of "garbage in; garbage out." If you're
not concerned about optimal health care, continue to lie.

It's probably safer for you to be upfront with the doctor at the
beginning of the visit about what you want or don't want.

Over the years, I've had parents bring children for well-child checks
who insisted on an abreviated appointment. Some didn't want to give the
child's medical history. Some didn't want the nurse to take the child's
vital signs. Some, like you, didn't want to hear about anticipatory
guidance. A few demanded shots only. And some wanted their child to
receive no shots at all. Some, I think, merely wanted me to gesture the
sign of the cross in blessing and send them on their way.

Such parents simplify my day. I simply draw a line through those areas
of the physical form and write, "Refused by parent."

Mark Probert

August 1st 03, 06:27 PM

Bill Fischer wrote:

> Roger Schlafly wrote:
>
>> "PF Riley" > wrote
>
>
>> When I goto a physician, I am there to get info and treatment
>> out of him. I am under no obligation to tell him the truth about
>> anything.
>
>
> Roger,
>
> This falls under the category of "garbage in; garbage out." If you're
> not concerned about optimal health care, continue to lie.
>
> It's probably safer for you to be upfront with the doctor at the
> beginning of the visit about what you want or don't want.
>
> Over the years, I've had parents bring children for well-child checks
> who insisted on an abreviated appointment. Some didn't want to give the
> child's medical history. Some didn't want the nurse to take the child's
> vital signs. Some, like you, didn't want to hear about anticipatory
> guidance. A few demanded shots only. And some wanted their child to
> receive no shots at all. Some, I think, merely wanted me to gesture the
> sign of the cross in blessing and send them on their way.
>
> Such parents simplify my day. I simply draw a line through those areas
> of the physical form and write, "Refused by parent."
>

Have them initial it. You will never regret it if they do, and may
regret it if they do not.

Roger Schlafly

August 1st 03, 06:43 PM

"Elizabeth Reid" > wrote
> Until more research is done about the effects of TV on very young
> children, the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) does not recommend
> television for children age 2 or younger. For older children, the
> Academy recommends no more than 1 to 2 hours per day of educational,
> nonviolent programs."
> This is splitting hairs somewhat, but they don't say, "should not
> watch TV" or "we recommend against TV". What they say is, we don't
> positively recommend TV. This seems pretty reasonable to me, given
> that it's unnecessary and in large quantities potentially
> harmful.

The AAP is not really recommending TV at any age. The point of the
above statement is: No TV before age 2.

> So your point is... any advice you disagree with, however slightly

My complaint is that it pretends to be expert advice, but it is really
just a random opinion that has no more validity than my grandmother's
opinion. The people who write those opinions haven't the foggiest
idea how to measure the effects of TV, and they have no science
or medicine or facts to back up what they say. It is just another
ignorant opinion. The AAP should stick to medical issues, where they
do have some expertise.

Roger Schlafly

August 1st 03, 07:29 PM

"Tsu Dho Nimh" > wrote
> >When I goto a physician, I am there to get info and treatment
> >out of him. I am under no obligation to tell him the truth about
> >anything.
> Have you ever considered that your health may depend on it? Or
> the health of your family, neighbors and community?

Absolutely. Sometimes my health depends on lying to get
the medicine I need.

> If you fail to mention, or lie about, a factor that is critical
> to the success of the drug, who will you blame?

You mean, like, if I fail to mention that I drive a car, and the
drug impairs driving, and I take the drug and have a car
accident, whom will I blame? In that case, I will blame the
physician for not explaining the effect of the drug.

> >Usually I'll want some advice as well,
> >but if he asks for my whole medical history and it is not relevant,
> And how do you know what is relevant?

Sometimes it is obvious.

CBI

August 2nd 03, 06:12 PM

"Roger Schlafly" > wrote in message
...
>
> The AAP is not really recommending TV at any age. The point of the
> above statement is: No TV before age 2.
>

That's one interpretation but not really the point at issue. The specific
claim of yours that she is calling into question is whether there are better
sources of information. To meet this burden you will have to find some
source that differs in their advice and then make the case that their
information is more authoritative.

Good luck, we look forward to seeing your reply.

Note to Elizabeth - don't let him shift the focus. It is what he tries to do
when you nail him on a topic.

--
CBI, MD

CBI

August 2nd 03, 06:18 PM

"Elizabeth Reid" > wrote in message
om...

> To be serious, if you start the conversation by talking about
> how annoying you find this, I'm not sure I'd trust what your
> acquaintances tell you. If I get into a conversation with a
> friend who tells me at length how irritating he finds it that
> sometimes people wear ugly hats, I'm likely to say, "Yeah, those
> ugly hats are a problem. I saw someone wearing one just yesterday."
> Doesn't mean it's actually something that bothers me on an
> ongoing basis.

The other problem is that people tend to surround themselves with liek
minded individuals making any one person's perceptions slanted. This is why
we need a broader perspective that can only be gathered by looking at the
experiences of many disparate situations.

> When we saw him
> for my son's 2-month well-baby checkup and he said, "No solid food,
> now, until after his 4-month appointment," I didn't think, "Why
> is he telling me this?? Does he think I'm a horrible person
> who would feed pizza and gel candy to my infant??!

Chances are he has recently spoken to parent that did. The only way to know
is to bring it up. What and when to start feeding a 2 month old infant is a
common question even amongst the most informed parents.

--
CBI, MD

August 2nd 03, 07:20 PM

"CBI" > wrote in message
...

> "Roger Schlafly" > wrote in message
> ...

> > The AAP is not really recommending TV at any age. The point of the
> > above statement is: No TV before age 2.

> That's one interpretation but not really the point at issue. The
specific
> claim of yours that she is calling into question is whether there are
better
> sources of information.

"Better" is subjective; when it comes to most *opinions*--and that's all
the AAP's advice about TV and infants is--the "betterness" of one over
another can't be proven.

To meet this burden you will have to find some
> source that differs in their advice and then make the case that their
> information is more authoritative.

"More authoritative" is also subjective. Many groups have a lot of
influence ("authoritativeness") over some people, but this doesn't mean
their opinions are "more correct." (Think of the deposed Hussein
regime!)

Here's a commentary (excellent, in my OPINION) about the AAP's "no TV
for kids <2" recommendation; the author is a psychologist :

"TV, Infants, and Common Sense" http://www.drheller.com/tv.html

From the article: "...it is usually too simple to just create
guidelines without addressing the wide range of life situations that
effect child development."
[...]
"Parents need to rely on their instincts. What is good for one child may
not be good for another. A very young child who is active, curious,
responsive and developing within normal limits is probably doing fine
whether he watches 30 minutes or 90 minutes of TV a day."

Roger Schlafly

August 2nd 03, 08:01 PM

"JG" > wrote
> "Better" is subjective; when it comes to most *opinions*--and that's all
> the AAP's advice about TV and infants is--the "betterness" of one over
> another can't be proven.

Yes. IMO, my grandmother has better opinions than the AAP.

> "Parents need to rely on their instincts. What is good for one child may
> not be good for another. A very young child who is active, curious,
> responsive and developing within normal limits is probably doing fine
> whether he watches 30 minutes or 90 minutes of TV a day."

Sounds reasonable to me. The AAP advice is foolish.

PF Riley

August 2nd 03, 08:33 PM

On Fri, 01 Aug 2003 17:43:48 GMT, "Roger Schlafly"
> wrote:

>"Elizabeth Reid" > wrote
>
>The AAP is not really recommending TV at any age. The point of the
>above statement is: No TV before age 2.

Wrong.

>> So your point is... any advice you disagree with, however slightly
>
>My complaint is that it pretends to be expert advice, but it is really
>just a random opinion that has no more validity than my grandmother's
>opinion. The people who write those opinions haven't the foggiest
>idea how to measure the effects of TV, and they have no science
>or medicine or facts to back up what they say. It is just another
>ignorant opinion. The AAP should stick to medical issues, where they
>do have some expertise.

Just because you're too stupid, lazy, or ignorant to look into the
matter further does not mean that the AAP recommendation is a "random
opinion," nor does it mean there is no "science" to it.

Here may be found the AAP Policy Statment on television:

http://www.aap.org/policy/re0043.html

Here's an excerpt:

>Although there are potential benefits from viewing some television
>shows, such as the promotion of positive aspects of social behavior
>(eg, sharing, manners, and cooperation), many negative health effects
>also can result. Children and adolescents are particularly vulnerable
>to the messages conveyed through television, which influence their
>perceptions and behaviors.6 Many younger children cannot discriminate
>between what they see and what is real. Research has shown primary
>negative health effects on violence and aggressive behavior7-12;
>sexuality7,13-15; academic performance16; body concept and
>self-image17-19; nutrition, dieting, and obesity17,20,21; and
>substance use and abuse patterns.7
>
>In the scientific literature on media violence, the connection of
>media violence to real-life aggressive behavior and violence has been
>substantiated.8-12 As much as 10% to 20% of real-life violence may be
>attributable to media violence.22 The recently completed 3-year
>National Television Violence Study found the following: 1) nearly two
>thirds of all programming contains violence; 2) children's shows
>contain the most violence; 3) portrayals of violence are usually
>glamorized; and 4) perpetrators often go unpunished.23 A recent
>comprehensive analysis of music videos found that nearly one fourth of
>all Music Television (MTV) videos portray overt violence and depict
>weapon carrying.24 Research has shown that even television news can
>traumatize children or lead to nightmares.25 In a random survey of
>parents with children in kindergarten through sixth grade, 37%
>reported that their child had been frightened or upset by a television
>story in the preceding year.26
>
>According to a recent content analysis, mainstream television
>programming contains large numbers of references to cigarettes,
>alcohol, and illicit drugs.27 One fourth of all MTV videos contain
>alcohol or tobacco use.28 A longitudinal study found a positive
>correlation between television and music video viewing and alcohol
>consumption among teens.29 Finally, content analyses show that
>children and teenagers continue to be bombarded with sexual imagery
>and innuendoes in programming and advertising.14,30,31 To date, there
>are no data available to substantiate the behavioral impact of this
>exposure.31

You may look up the references on the webpage. Please address each of
these references and explain why you still believe they have no
"science" or "facts" to back up these statements. Note many of the
effects of television are things even JG would have to admit are
related to "health" (e.g., obesity). Why would, then, counseling by a
pediatrician on television viewing be any different than counseling by
an internist on eating habits or drug use?

Next, you claim the AAP says, "No TV under age 2." Here's what they
actually say:

"Discourage television viewing for children younger than 2 years, and
encourage more interactive activities that will promote proper brain
development, such as talking, playing, singing, and reading together."

How wacky and foolish! Roger, please ask your grandmother: "Is it
better, in general, for a two-year-old, given the choice by his
parents, to engage in interactive activities such as talking, playing,
singing, and reading with his parents or is it better for him to watch
television instead?" Please let us know her answer.

Finally, at the end of the Policy Statement, it says: "The
recommendations in this statement do not indicate an exclusive course
of treatment or serve as a standard of medical care. Variations,
taking into account individual circumstances, may be appropriate." In
other words, Teletubbies might be great for some one-year-olds.

PF

PF Riley

August 2nd 03, 08:53 PM

On Fri, 01 Aug 2003 18:29:50 GMT, "Roger Schlafly"
> wrote:

>"Tsu Dho Nimh" > wrote
>
>> If you fail to mention, or lie about, a factor that is critical
>> to the success of the drug, who will you blame?
>
>You mean, like, if I fail to mention that I drive a car, and the
>drug impairs driving, and I take the drug and have a car
>accident, whom will I blame? In that case, I will blame the
>physician for not explaining the effect of the drug.

A substantial percentage of adult males lie about having had seizures
in order to be cleared to drive. If one of them then has a seizure and
has an accident, who is to blame?

>> >Usually I'll want some advice as well,
>> >but if he asks for my whole medical history and it is not relevant,
>> And how do you know what is relevant?
>
>Sometimes it is obvious.

And usually it is not.

PF

Wendy Marsden

August 2nd 03, 09:43 PM

PF Riley > wrote:
> On Fri, 01 Aug 2003 08:50:00 GMT, "Roger Schlafly" wrote:
>>
>>Suppose, for example, I've already done my homework and
>>I want a particular prescription drug. Then I'll just tell the
>>physician whatever is convenient to get him to write the
>>prescription that I want. Usually I'll want some advice as well,
>>but if he asks for my whole medical history and it is not relevant,
>>then I'll lie about it. Telling the full truth might just be an obstruction
>>to getting the treatment that I want.

> I really have to conclude at this point that Roger is just trolling.
> No one can possibly be this stupid and still manage to figure out how
> to post on the Usenet.

That was my conclusion, too. Sort of like allowing his three year old to
monitor her life-threatening peanut allergy on her own. It's got to be
trolling, right? (God, I hope so.)

Wendy

August 2nd 03, 10:00 PM

"PF Riley" > wrote in message
...

> On Fri, 01 Aug 2003 17:43:48 GMT, "Roger Schlafly"
> > wrote:

> >"Elizabeth Reid" > wrote

> >The AAP is not really recommending TV at any age. The point of the
> >above statement is: No TV before age 2.

> Wrong.

Right, PF (see citation below).

> >> So your point is... any advice you disagree with, however slightly

> >My complaint is that it pretends to be expert advice, but it is
really
> >just a random opinion that has no more validity than my grandmother's
> >opinion. The people who write those opinions haven't the foggiest
> >idea how to measure the effects of TV, and they have no science
> >or medicine or facts to back up what they say. It is just another
> >ignorant opinion. The AAP should stick to medical issues, where they
> >do have some expertise.

> Just because you're too stupid, lazy, or ignorant to look into the
> matter further does not mean that the AAP recommendation is a "random
> opinion," nor does it mean there is no "science" to it.

> Here may be found the AAP Policy Statment on television:

> http://www.aap.org/policy/re0043.html

And "here may be found" another one:

http://www.aap.org/policy/re9911.html

from the above:
RECOMMENDATIONS
The AAP recommends the following:
1. ...
2. ...
3. Pediatricians should urge parents to avoid television viewing for
children under the age of 2 years. Although certain television programs
may be promoted to this age group, research on early brain development
shows that babies and toddlers have a critical need for direct
interactions with parents and other significant caregivers (eg, child
care providers) for healthy brain growth and the development of
appropriate social, emotional, and cognitive skills. Therefore, exposing
such young children to television programs should be discouraged.

> Here's an excerpt:

> >Although there are potential benefits from viewing some television
> >shows, such as the promotion of positive aspects of social behavior
> >(eg, sharing, manners, and cooperation), many negative health effects
> >also can result. Children and adolescents are particularly vulnerable
> >to the messages conveyed through television, which influence their
> >perceptions and behaviors.6 Many younger children cannot discriminate
> >between what they see and what is real. Research has shown primary
> >negative health effects on violence and aggressive behavior7-12;
> >sexuality7,13-15; academic performance16; body concept and
> >self-image17-19; nutrition, dieting, and obesity17,20,21; and
> >substance use and abuse patterns.7

> >In the scientific literature on media violence, the connection of
> >media violence to real-life aggressive behavior and violence has been
> >substantiated.8-12 As much as 10% to 20% of real-life violence may be
> >attributable to media violence.22 The recently completed 3-year
> >National Television Violence Study found the following: 1) nearly two
> >thirds of all programming contains violence; 2) children's shows
> >contain the most violence; 3) portrayals of violence are usually
> >glamorized; and 4) perpetrators often go unpunished.23 A recent
> >comprehensive analysis of music videos found that nearly one fourth
of
> >all Music Television (MTV) videos portray overt violence and depict
> >weapon carrying.24 Research has shown that even television news can
> >traumatize children or lead to nightmares.25 In a random survey of
> >parents with children in kindergarten through sixth grade, 37%
> >reported that their child had been frightened or upset by a
television
> >story in the preceding year.26

> >According to a recent content analysis, mainstream television
> >programming contains large numbers of references to cigarettes,
> >alcohol, and illicit drugs.27 One fourth of all MTV videos contain
> >alcohol or tobacco use.28 A longitudinal study found a positive
> >correlation between television and music video viewing and alcohol
> >consumption among teens.29 Finally, content analyses show that
> >children and teenagers continue to be bombarded with sexual imagery
> >and innuendoes in programming and advertising.14,30,31 To date, there
> >are no data available to substantiate the behavioral impact of this
> >exposure.31

> You may look up the references on the webpage. Please address each of
> these references and explain why you still believe they have no
> "science" or "facts" to back up these statements.

YOU go look up the references, PF; I bet not one reseacher used children
*LESS THAN TWO YEARS OLD* in the his/her study! (Talk about weaseling!)

Recent research
(http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2003/01/030123073709.htm) has
indicated that infants pick up "emotional clues" from watching others'
televised reactions to various things. Seems to indicate that TV, then,
could be a great educational tool (or, of course, a great propaganda
tool!).

Note many of the
> effects of television are things even JG would have to admit are
> related to "health" (e.g., obesity). Why would, then, counseling by a
> pediatrician on television viewing be any different than counseling by
> an internist on eating habits or drug use?

LOL. I think I could find a correlation between *any* activity and
(physical and/or mental) health, PF.

> Next, you claim the AAP says, "No TV under age 2." Here's what they
> actually say:

> "Discourage television viewing for children younger than 2 years, and
> encourage more interactive activities that will promote proper brain
> development, such as talking, playing, singing, and reading together."

Addressed above.

> How wacky and foolish! Roger, please ask your grandmother: "Is it
> better, in general, for a two-year-old, given the choice by his
> parents, to engage in interactive activities such as talking, playing,
> singing, and reading with his parents or is it better for him to watch
> television instead?" Please let us know her answer.

I think just about everyone would agree that human interaction is
preferable (and that being active is healthier than sitting in front ot
the tube for hours on end). The AAP could have issued statements saying
"(We believe) Interaction with others is good for kids' development" and
"Physical activity is good for kids' health" and then leave it up to
parents to determine how much interaction and activity their kids
got....but they didn't ('cause parents are dolts, PF?).

Roger Schlafly

August 3rd 03, 12:11 AM

"PF Riley" > wrote
> >RECOMMENDATIONS
> >The AAP recommends the following:
> >3. Pediatricians should urge parents to avoid television viewing for
> >children under the age of 2 years.
> Again, how is making a recommendation to "urge" parents to "avoid"
> television for kids under two the same as saying, "No TV?"

Avoiding TV means No TV. Look it up.

> If the AAP feels something must be an absolute, they say so:
> "All bicyclists should wear properly fitted bicycle or multisport
> helmets each time they ride."
> (Does it say, "Bicyclists are encouraged to wear a helmet?" No.)

The difference is that the AAP lobbies for laws forcing all kids
to wear helmets when they ride a bicycle. So far it is not trying
to make TV illegal for 1-year-olds -- it is just saying that parents
should voluntarily prevent their 1-year-olds from watching TV.

> claim? He claimed that the AAP Policy Statement was made without any
> "science" or "facts."

That's true. There is no science behind those recommendations. It
is signed by a committee of peds, not scientists. Most of the
references are to opinion articles in medical and lay journals.
Where it cites facts, the sources are dubious, and they don't support
the conclusions anyway.

TV was just the first example. The other AAP recommendations are
pathetic also.

PF Riley

August 3rd 03, 06:06 AM

On Sat, 02 Aug 2003 23:11:02 GMT, "Roger Schlafly"
> wrote:

>"PF Riley" > wrote
>
>> claim? He claimed that the AAP Policy Statement was made without any
>> "science" or "facts."
>
>That's true. There is no science behind those recommendations. It
>is signed by a committee of peds, not scientists. Most of the
>references are to opinion articles in medical and lay journals.
>Where it cites facts, the sources are dubious, and they don't support
>the conclusions anyway.

Please be more specific.

>TV was just the first example. The other AAP recommendations are
>pathetic also.

All of them?

PF

August 3rd 03, 06:12 AM

"PF Riley" > wrote in message
...
> On Sat, 02 Aug 2003 21:00:27 GMT, "JG" > wrote:

> >"PF Riley" > wrote in message
> ...

> >> On Fri, 01 Aug 2003 17:43:48 GMT, "Roger Schlafly"
> >> > wrote:

> >> >"Elizabeth Reid" > wrote

> >> >The AAP is not really recommending TV at any age. The point of the
> >> >above statement is: No TV before age 2.

> >> Wrong.

> >Right, PF (see citation below).

> >> Here may be found the AAP Policy Statment on television:

> >> http://www.aap.org/policy/re0043.html

> >And "here may be found" another one:

> >http://www.aap.org/policy/re9911.html

> >from the above:
> >RECOMMENDATIONS
> >The AAP recommends the following:
> >1. ...
> >2. ...
> >3. Pediatricians should urge parents to avoid television viewing for
> >children under the age of 2 years. Although certain television
programs
> >may be promoted to this age group, research on early brain
development
> >shows that babies and toddlers have a critical need for direct
> >interactions with parents and other significant caregivers (eg, child
> >care providers) for healthy brain growth and the development of
> >appropriate social, emotional, and cognitive skills. Therefore,
exposing
> >such young children to television programs should be discouraged.

> Again, how is making a recommendation to "urge" parents to "avoid"
> television for kids under two the same as saying, "No TV?"

Oh, puhleeze! "I urge you to avoid television" is absolutely equivalent
to "I recommend no television." Talk about quibbling! In the absence
of any law prohibiting young infants from watching TV, a physician's
stating even a simple, flat, "No television" (i.e., w/o the preface of
"I recommend") is nothing more than a recommendation.

> If the AAP feels something must be an absolute, they say so:

> "All bicyclists should wear properly fitted bicycle or multisport
> helmets each time they ride."

You want to argue, PF? The above statement is not an absolute; "All
bicyclists MUST (or SHALL, or WILL) wear..." would be an absolute.
There's a lot of difference between "should"/"may"/"ought to" and
"shall"/"will"/"must." (I recently sat in on a hearing in which this
very topic was the crux of the petitioner's case. He [a friend who's an
attorney] was seeking an injunction to have a statement excluded from a
pre-election voters' guide. Colorado statutes require those submitting
such statements [to election officials] to include their address;
specifically, the wording states, "...SHALL include his/her address..."
Well, one statement that was submitted [arguing for a tax increase to
which the petitioner was opposed] didn't include the author's address.
The judge agreed that "shall" means "must," not "may" or "should," but
that the statement be allowed [e.g., included in the voters' guide]
because a higher court, in a similar case, had ruled that omission of a
statement provider's address wasn't a material flaw. Judicial activism
again rears its uglty head...)

> (Does it say, "Bicyclists are encouraged to wear a helmet?" No.)

"Should" = "are encouraged to," PF. Again, "should" is not the same as
"must" or "shall."

> The whole purpose to debating this fine point is because it is the
> premise of Roger's conclusion that the recommendations are "wacky and
> foolish." As is typical, Roger's complaint is based on nothing more
> than his own misunderstanding.

Trying to shift the focus, PF? Isn't that weaseling? <g>

> >> You may look up the references on the webpage. Please address each
of
> >> these references and explain why you still believe they have no
> >> "science" or "facts" to back up these statements.

> >YOU go look up the references, PF; I bet not one reseacher used
children
> >*LESS THAN TWO YEARS OLD* in the his/her study! (Talk about
weaseling!)

> So it is my duty to do the research to support or refute Roger's
> claim? He claimed that the AAP Policy Statement was made without any
> "science" or "facts."

He was, I believe, referring to the portion of the statement regarding
kids <2.

I can't exactly be accused of weaseling since I
> never made any claim to weasel from. In fact, I did a little of his
> own homework for him. If he now fails to address what I've presented
> to him, then, who's the weasel?

Look, PF, the subject is "TV and kids *<2 years old*," not "TV and
kids." Show us some facts/research ("science") related to the effects
of television on the health of kids YOUNGER THAN TWO.

> >> Note many of the
> >> effects of television are things even JG would have to admit are
> >> related to "health" (e.g., obesity). Why would, then, counseling by
a
> >> pediatrician on television viewing be any different than counseling
by
> >> an internist on eating habits or drug use?

> >LOL. I think I could find a correlation between *any* activity and
> >(physical and/or mental) health, PF.

> Well, I'm glad you finally agree then that promotion of awareness of
> bicycle helmets, booster seats, and choking hazards fall within the
> realm of the AAP's commitment to the health of children.

Not at all. I'm saying that I, like the AAP, could (i.e., if I wanted
to, or if it served my purposes) draw correlations (CLAIM) that
everything is heath-related; I still maintain that there's a difference
between health and safety.

> >> How wacky and foolish! Roger, please ask your grandmother: "Is it
> >> better, in general, for a two-year-old, given the choice by his
> >> parents, to engage in interactive activities such as talking,
playing,
> >> singing, and reading with his parents or is it better for him to
watch
> >> television instead?" Please let us know her answer.

> >I think just about everyone would agree that human interaction is
> >preferable (and that being active is healthier than sitting in front
ot
> >the tube for hours on end). The AAP could have issued statements
saying
> >"(We believe) Interaction with others is good for kids' development"
and
> >"Physical activity is good for kids' health" and then leave it up to
> >parents to determine how much interaction and activity their kids
> >got....but they didn't ('cause parents are dolts, PF?).

> Bwahaha! I still don't get why you think <snicker> that raising one's
> finger and giving such sage "advice" as, "Keep a close eye on your
> child," or, "Feed him anything he won't choke on," or, "Physical
> activity is good for kids' health," is any less insulting (and in fact
> not even MORE insulting!) than giving targeted and specific warnings
> on commonly overlooked (in the pediatrician's experience) safety
> hazards, choking hazards, and factors that interfere with physical
> activity.

Jeez, PF, I kinda thought you read my posts *sniff* <g>. I already
answered this for you (on 7/23); go to Google groups and find it.

JG