|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Sat Oct 15, 2005 10:01 am
um...yes...an asprin can kill a child if they are allergic...but if not and given in the proper dosage it won't. Perhaps asprin is the wrong med...ok Tylenol. People don't die from taking one tylenol. However, has sex with the wrong person and it is a death wish. I never said not to give them...however, I expect to know what my child who is a minor is involved in. Given I am the parent who would be downright livid if a doctor performed an abortion or any other medical proceedure on my daughter w/o my consent as well. Unless they will be sitting by her bedside until she is 100% recovered it is not their right to do such things.
Hopefully though none of this will be an issue. Hopefully I have set up a good enough precident that they can ask me anything. I mean their mother's job deals w/ part of the female anatomy daily. And any questions thus far I have answered so hopefully she keeps asking. I dunno. Maybe it's my skittishness. I've had medical professionals go behind my back and do things I would not have permitted to my children. Medically they thought they were right...and they were most definately wrong and caused serious illness for one baby and almost death for another. I just want to know what is going on w/ my kids. I have a need to know anymore LOL.
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Oct 15, 2005 10:26 am
You're really never supposed to give a child aspirin because of the chance of Reye's Syndrome. And there ARE people who can die from one Tylenol, albeit rare, it can happen. I can understand wanting to know what is given to your child, but I don't think getting a medical procedure and giving out condoms is exactly the same.
I think I'm on a different wavelength. I wouldn't mind if they gave my children condoms, I would hope that my child is close enough and I have done a good enough job communicating that they would tell ME that they were given some. My mother also would send letters at the beginning of the school year letting them know which classes she didn't want me in. She didn't like the child abuse classes and I had to sit out of those.
Although I do also want to point out that there IS doctor patient priveledge which is very important, so a doctor can't tell you what he did or didn't do if a teenager got something done.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Oct 15, 2005 1:14 pm
Actually that is incorrect. There are very few proceedures a doctor can do on a minor without parental consent. Abortions being one of the very few that I know of. A minor can not even get their ears peirced w/o parental consent which is still a major oxymoron. And the chances of Tylenol killing them are far less than them getting a life long STD. Like I said I'm not against them handing them out...however, I am against them not informing the parents of what they are doing.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Oct 15, 2005 3:53 pm
lunashock Although I do also want to point out that there IS doctor patient priveledge which is very important, so a doctor can't tell you what he did or didn't do if a teenager got something done. Very good point. That privilege where I live (BC, Canada) kicks in at 17, if the patient chooses. So a few months after 17, I went to my doctor and asked to go on the Pill. I was able to get my birth control, and paid for it in cash each month for the duration I was on it (1 year and 1 month) because if it were charged to my parents' medical insurance, they would have seen it on the bill and found out I was sexually active. So true to her word, she never told my parents. Even after my family switched doctors, the new one gave me a pap smear (etc) when I asked to switch to Depo, and again, she let me do it. I was 18 at the time. My parents have been very overbearing as I've been growing up, so there is a reason I have not told them I am sexually active, or that I'm on birth control (now on Depo). I have been mature about it from the very beginning, and am with someone in a long-term, commited relationship. We're both 19 now, so we're both legal adults. We know the risks and the consequences of what we are doing, and understand them fully. He has promised not to turn his back on me if I get pregnant, or if something else should happen, so we're just taking it one week, one month at a time. If my parents find out I've been having sex and/or I'm on birth control, then it happens. I'm 19 now, so there's not really anything they can do aside from kick me out of the house. I have my reasons for not telling them, and have been responsible from day one.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Oct 15, 2005 3:55 pm
I think I can see both sides of the coin here.
Sometimes I think the government and schools are taking TOO much liberty with "raising" our children. i think it should be the parents' responsibility to give out condoms and dispense other sexual info to their kids.
HOWEVER, it is a fact that way too many parents are lax (or too embarrassed, etc) to teach their kids about sex and such, so obviously someone needs to step in and at least try and help.
Anyway, I am not against condoms being handed out. If my child chooses to have sex, they're gonna do it. I hope to have a strong close relationship with my kids, but kids will invariably do what they will at that age. You cannot always be there to tell them "no."
And I'd rather them at least have some kind of protection, then come home with a baby or an STD. I hope they wouldn't be having sex at a young age anyway, but like I said, a parent cannot be around their child 24/7.
If they're too embarrassed to buy condoms themselves, or they feel they can't talk to me about it, I'd at least want them to have some protection.
But I don't think that having the school send out a "Condom Giving Out Day" notice would be too much to ask. If for nothing more than to just keep parents informed about things going on.
And as for the Tylenol thing: I have heard that tylenol can cause damage to your liver if it's taken in excess. But you really have to be careful with any medications you give your kids.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Oct 15, 2005 4:11 pm
badloki And as for the Tylenol thing: I have heard that tylenol can cause damage to your liver if it's taken in excess. But you really have to be careful with any medications you give your kids. Acetominophin is harmful to liver - causing both liver failure and liver disease. "The safe adult maximum dose for acetaminophen is four grams over a 24- to 48-hour period. Most capsules or tablets contain 325 mg. This means that a maximun dose would be equal to approximately 12 tablets. A maximum dosage could easily be reached if two tablets are taken every four hours. Considering that other products may also contain acetaminophen, it is likely that the maximum dose could be easily exceeded."
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Oct 21, 2005 9:16 am
hey everyone! i just had my son 6 weeks ago and i BF him.. when i BF him in public i put a receiving blanket over my shoulder.. but thats only cuz my breast are a little bigger then my sons head lol.. but i mean its so natural to BF and i dont understand why anyone at all is going to down a mother for BFing at all! half the people downing us for BFing were BF themselves I BET! lol..
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Oct 22, 2005 12:21 am
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Oct 22, 2005 6:46 am
I like how all the books they hate are books they have to read in school. Like ALL of them. Me I loved The Catcher in the Rye, The Great Gatsby, The Outsiders, To Kill a Mockingbird...etc. Although I do hate Hemmeningway and Old Man and the Sea with a firey burning passion. And I will agree that half of what the romantic poets wrote was insiped tripe, especially that Walt Whitman. But those last two opinions were actually formed in college where like I read them and thought critically about them instead of being all *POUT* I hate being forced to read *POUT* like those kids.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Oct 22, 2005 10:12 am
I loved most of the books that I read in school, but I think the biggest problem was not so much the books it was the way they were dragged through by the teachers, I personally didnt want to spend 3 days on 2 pages of a book discussing their meaning. As by the time Id read the pages Id determined my own opinion and I didnt care to be forced into an opinion by the teachers guide book.
I think one of my favorites though in class was the Chrysalids, (SP?) I found it really interesting before we read it as a class, I even went and did some reseach on my own about it.
Like I said I dont think its really the books, though some people dont enjoy certain kinds of books Im not really big into Steven King or Dean Koontz? Ive never liked their books, and if I had to read them I would most likely whine. LOL. I really do think its the way they are taught, they need to update the teaching system to get kids interested again. More participation less regurgitation.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Oct 22, 2005 10:20 am
XD "I sing of the body electric." Yeah, I'm not a Whitman fan either when it comes to poetry. I much prefer Emily Dickenson. I'm not a big poetry person in general though; I can admire people who write it and well but it's not something I like to read when I have the free time.
As for books I had to read in school, there were very few I hated and it wasn't because OH NOEZ!!!one!!11!! I had to read them, it was just because they honestly did not suit my tastes. From what I can remember the only ones I truly hated were "Lord of the Flies," "Moby d**k" [Omigod, how can anyone write such a long sentance about TYING ROPE?!], and in college I could not stand "The Awakening," or understand why it is so highly praised as this great feminist novel. YUCK. Actually most things that lit. teacher assigned were depressing and not much to my liking, but that book definitely topped my "Oh god, why did I have to read that?" list. But a good portion of them, I've re-read again later when I could take the time to enjoy them and break them down at my own pace.
I'd always get upset when the class would get split up into multiple book groups and I'd have to choose one and often times I'd read at least one other based on the reports they'd do later. I read "Native Son," that way. I had to read another book, and when I watched that group's report I thought, "Wow, that sounds really interesting, I have to read that some time."
Some of those books they were blasting though are GREAT books. "Brave New World?" Who can not like that book? It's just so interesting like, "1984." You'd think crazy government conspiracy and control would be right up their alley; especially the first book where only specific females are ever picked and allowed to breed. -snicker-
I think what I find most amusing is that a component of English class is literature and all of these kids are horrified that they have to read something that is not a Graphic Novel. On the other hand I have a hard time understanding their hatred of reading because I have always read and been read too. Do people just not read to their children anymore?
EDIT: I dunno, for all of my English classes they were active open discussions about possible meanings of everything along with historical context to help us out. I'm sure I didn't go to the only schools that taught that way.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Oct 22, 2005 10:35 am
*laughing* Hey your lucky then, One of the books I by choice read for a project was The Last of the Mohicans, Excellent movie, but Oh My Grace! He went on for almost 10 pages about a leaf! I was just about to shoot myself. Talk about detail.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Oct 22, 2005 10:43 am
Dirge, I completely agree about Melville. I had to read Billy Budd. It was 100 pages long, and I think we determined that the whole story could have been told in 2. If he wanted to get really descriptive, he could've taken 5 pages. 100 was excessive. I'm pretty sure that Melville was paid by the length of his stories which were published in installments which would explain why he took the very, very long route in explaining anything and would go off on tangents about nothing.
I think much of the reason why works read in school are the most despised is because many students feel like that have to go ahead and finish reading the book and then endure discussion of it. If you hate a novel that you are reading on your own, you're allowed to put it down. Even if you decide to finish it, you don't have to sit through discussions of it. Of course, I've also found that works I previously didn't like, I liked much better once I understood them. Paying attention to discussions in class can definitely increase comprehension.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Oct 22, 2005 10:47 am
3nodding I had that happen with a few too. At first I couldn't stand them and after hearing some background info or seeing a different perspective on them, it would hit me that they really weren't so bad.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Oct 22, 2005 1:50 pm
YAY! I started a good discussion! *happy dance* Ok, now that that's out of the way.... There are a lot of books out there I couldn't stand, but read them anyway. If only for the historical value. I think a lot of these books would be better understood if the time they were written during was better understood. Most of these classics revolve around the horrid underbelly of the past. In a time when kids are (usually) exposed only to all things happy, fluffy, and good, I can see why they wouldn't be liked. They bear the stark truth upon the world. I think the greatest hate from books like Lord of the Flies comes from the brutality of the book itself. It's grotesque in a way most people are not accustomed to. Even established modern authors such as Poppy Z. Brite have a hard time with that book. "Another thing Hearts in Atlantis is about, or at least a motif that's very important in it, is the novel Lord of the Flies by William Golding. I'm going to tell you a secret now. It's not a very important secret, but I don't think I've ever told anyone except Chris: Lord of the Flies is one of the few novels that affected me very deeply that I've only ever read once. I read it it bed when I was fifteen with a bad case of the flu, and to be honest, I've just never quite had the stones to go through that experience again. So that's my Big Important Secret, as they go in my life: I've only read Lord of the Flies once. When we had it in school the following year, I worked from memory. That is one hardcore book. I'm not sure I'll ever work up the guts to read it again, though I'm thinking about it a lot, I really am." (from Poppys LJ 20 OCT 05)Literature has come a long way in regards to the writing itself. But one must also consider that the English language as a whole has evolved too. A lot of the 'gramatical problems' most people complain about, is how things were said, or written during that particular time period. So much must be taken into consideration of the Classics before it is tossed. Granted it all falls down to personal opinion. But just because it's written in a way that is not 'todays' standard' doesn't mean it's not worth reading. To all the techno kiddies = If we can deal with your netspeak and blatant murder and mutiliation of the English language, then you can be arsed to sit and read a book that predated and led to our current patterns of speech and writing. razz
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reply
