http://community.babycenter.com/post/a26558233/bf_in_public?cpg=1&csi=2305345030&pd=-3
How sad is it that people can see a disabled woman who clearly has her hands full taking care of her young children and doing basic tasks like shopping, and think that it is appropriate to subject her to ridicule or suggest that she should hide from public view?
Seriously, where is the basic human decency?
Showing posts with label Babycenter. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Babycenter. Show all posts
Thursday, February 24, 2011
Wednesday, February 23, 2011
More fear-mongering about Canada's "socialized medicine"
http://community.babycenter.com/post/a26539077/canadian_judge_orders_breathing_tube_removed_from_baby?cpg=1&csi=2304845086&pd=-1
First, Fox gets basic facts wrong in its coverage of the story (like the role of the Office of the Public Guardian and Trustee), then posters with an agenda distort it further.
This is undoubtedly a tragic story.
The hospital may be motivated, in part, by a concern about spending medical resources in a situation of medical futility. However, by law they cannot do anything without consent. The court order gave a deadline for the parents to consent, but since the parents didn't consent, the hospital wasn't able to do anything.
I don't have the court decision in front of me, but we do have an independent judiciary. This wasn't a decision of a bureaucrat bean-counter.
If the parents don't give consent, the hospital may seek it from the Office of the Public Guardian and Trustee. No, they are not Public Defenders. They are a special government office mandated to provide specific services to people who are mentally incapable of making their own decisions - including health care decisions. In the case of a minor, the criteria for their health care decision would be simply the best interests of the child. They can't consider the cost issue.
Now, I don't pretend to know the least horrible way for a child to die. It all sounds hideous. I'm not sure, though, that it's better to subject this child to a tracheotomy just so he can be moved home, as opposed to simply removing the breathing tube. It may be - and perhaps the fact that the parents had previous experience with this gives them a reason to choose it now.
There are issues here about the extent of parental discretion in making medicals decisions, and the role of hospitals where they believe that further treatment is futile or even harmful. These issues should be discussed. Falsely labelling this as an issue about Evil Socialized Medicine, however, helps no one.
First, Fox gets basic facts wrong in its coverage of the story (like the role of the Office of the Public Guardian and Trustee), then posters with an agenda distort it further.
This is undoubtedly a tragic story.
The hospital may be motivated, in part, by a concern about spending medical resources in a situation of medical futility. However, by law they cannot do anything without consent. The court order gave a deadline for the parents to consent, but since the parents didn't consent, the hospital wasn't able to do anything.
I don't have the court decision in front of me, but we do have an independent judiciary. This wasn't a decision of a bureaucrat bean-counter.
If the parents don't give consent, the hospital may seek it from the Office of the Public Guardian and Trustee. No, they are not Public Defenders. They are a special government office mandated to provide specific services to people who are mentally incapable of making their own decisions - including health care decisions. In the case of a minor, the criteria for their health care decision would be simply the best interests of the child. They can't consider the cost issue.
Now, I don't pretend to know the least horrible way for a child to die. It all sounds hideous. I'm not sure, though, that it's better to subject this child to a tracheotomy just so he can be moved home, as opposed to simply removing the breathing tube. It may be - and perhaps the fact that the parents had previous experience with this gives them a reason to choose it now.
There are issues here about the extent of parental discretion in making medicals decisions, and the role of hospitals where they believe that further treatment is futile or even harmful. These issues should be discussed. Falsely labelling this as an issue about Evil Socialized Medicine, however, helps no one.
Wednesday, November 3, 2010
No, a uterus is not a public viewing gallery
Crazy Babycenter post of the day:
http://community.babycenter.com/post/a24955845/significant_others_and_ultrasounds?cpg=1&csi=2236438851&pd=-1
It drives me a bit bonkers, as a mother and a family lawyer, to hear this discussed in terms of RIGHTS.
An ultrasound is a medical procedure, people.
It's not spectator sport. It's not a form of prenatal visitation.
The answer to the question "who should be there?" is simple. Whoever the mother wants. Period.
For some of mine, my husband was by my side, and I was grateful for his supportive presence. I can't imagine NOT having him there when our first miscarriage was diagnosed, or when we got confirmation after a scare that the second pregnancy was indeed viable and healthy. These were deeply emotional times for us. He didn't get there by demanding "rights". He got there by being my totally supportive rock, and showing that the well-being of the baby and I was his absolute top priority.
For others (and I had to have quite a few), he wasn't there. While I preferred to have him around, I realized that medical procedures aren't about having a fetus perform for an audience. It was about getting medical care, and that couldn't always wait for my husband to be available. It was a medical and scheduling issue, not a larger statement on future attachment to a child.
http://community.babycenter.com/post/a24955845/significant_others_and_ultrasounds?cpg=1&csi=2236438851&pd=-1
It drives me a bit bonkers, as a mother and a family lawyer, to hear this discussed in terms of RIGHTS.
An ultrasound is a medical procedure, people.
It's not spectator sport. It's not a form of prenatal visitation.
The answer to the question "who should be there?" is simple. Whoever the mother wants. Period.
For some of mine, my husband was by my side, and I was grateful for his supportive presence. I can't imagine NOT having him there when our first miscarriage was diagnosed, or when we got confirmation after a scare that the second pregnancy was indeed viable and healthy. These were deeply emotional times for us. He didn't get there by demanding "rights". He got there by being my totally supportive rock, and showing that the well-being of the baby and I was his absolute top priority.
For others (and I had to have quite a few), he wasn't there. While I preferred to have him around, I realized that medical procedures aren't about having a fetus perform for an audience. It was about getting medical care, and that couldn't always wait for my husband to be available. It was a medical and scheduling issue, not a larger statement on future attachment to a child.
Tuesday, September 28, 2010
The whole "how could you send your baby to daycare" debate
You know this debate.
Around the time that my eldest daughter was born, it took the form of Dr. Laura comparing daycares to kennels.
It's still going around, taking lovely and sensitive approaches like this:
http://community.babycenter.com/post/a24476509/babies_in_daycare_edit
Now, I'm not going to go through every single argument about daycare. I am, however, going to add some perspective and a few questions.
1. Are we looking only at what a mother is doing Monday-Friday, 9-5, or are we looking at what both parents are doing, 24/7?
Does having one parent stay at home mean that the other parent is virtually absentee?
Do we care about what is happening during all the time that the parents ARE with the child? For example, my eldest started daycare at 8 mos., for 9 hours/day. The rest of the time, she was with me. Constantly. She was still nursing, she co-slept, and we almost never went out without her. Looking back, I actually remember far more about her babyhood than I do about that of her younger brother. I stayed home with him until he was 14 months, but he - bless his heart - spent most of it sleeping.
2. If spending the first year with a baby is that important, shouldn't government and workplace policies reflect that? Why attack the moms?
I'm Canadian, so it's pretty clear to me that if you guarantee someone's job while they are off and ensure that they will continue to have medical coverage and give some benefits so they can pay some bills - they will often choose to stay home with a baby. Funny how that works.
3. Shouldn't we be asking "what is in the best interests of the child and family in this particular situation, given all the factors?" and not "isn't there any possible thing that you could do in order to stay at home?"
Yes, there are choices in life. Let's take a look at whether choosing to live in a safer area, or pay for a child's schooling, or have the means to afford proper food and health care, or working to build up a career that will allow longer term flexibility, etc. can be worthy goals for some families - and maybe benefit the children just as much as having a parent physically present.
4. Why would we assume that family members are always better care providers than trained professionals?
Yes, sometimes grandma is the perfect childcare solution. Sometimes, though, she may be abusive or alcoholic or just clueless. Why is there an automatic assumption that family is better? Shouldn't we take a level-headed look at EVERYONE who cares for our children?
By the way, those Dr. Laura comments did bother me...until I learned to turn off the radio, and focus on my daughter instead. I saw her laughing and having a good time, I saw that my husband and I had far less stress since my new job allowed us to pay our bills, and I realized that no one else's opinion really mattered.
Around the time that my eldest daughter was born, it took the form of Dr. Laura comparing daycares to kennels.
It's still going around, taking lovely and sensitive approaches like this:
http://community.babycenter.com/post/a24476509/babies_in_daycare_edit
Now, I'm not going to go through every single argument about daycare. I am, however, going to add some perspective and a few questions.
1. Are we looking only at what a mother is doing Monday-Friday, 9-5, or are we looking at what both parents are doing, 24/7?
Does having one parent stay at home mean that the other parent is virtually absentee?
Do we care about what is happening during all the time that the parents ARE with the child? For example, my eldest started daycare at 8 mos., for 9 hours/day. The rest of the time, she was with me. Constantly. She was still nursing, she co-slept, and we almost never went out without her. Looking back, I actually remember far more about her babyhood than I do about that of her younger brother. I stayed home with him until he was 14 months, but he - bless his heart - spent most of it sleeping.
2. If spending the first year with a baby is that important, shouldn't government and workplace policies reflect that? Why attack the moms?
I'm Canadian, so it's pretty clear to me that if you guarantee someone's job while they are off and ensure that they will continue to have medical coverage and give some benefits so they can pay some bills - they will often choose to stay home with a baby. Funny how that works.
3. Shouldn't we be asking "what is in the best interests of the child and family in this particular situation, given all the factors?" and not "isn't there any possible thing that you could do in order to stay at home?"
Yes, there are choices in life. Let's take a look at whether choosing to live in a safer area, or pay for a child's schooling, or have the means to afford proper food and health care, or working to build up a career that will allow longer term flexibility, etc. can be worthy goals for some families - and maybe benefit the children just as much as having a parent physically present.
4. Why would we assume that family members are always better care providers than trained professionals?
Yes, sometimes grandma is the perfect childcare solution. Sometimes, though, she may be abusive or alcoholic or just clueless. Why is there an automatic assumption that family is better? Shouldn't we take a level-headed look at EVERYONE who cares for our children?
By the way, those Dr. Laura comments did bother me...until I learned to turn off the radio, and focus on my daughter instead. I saw her laughing and having a good time, I saw that my husband and I had far less stress since my new job allowed us to pay our bills, and I realized that no one else's opinion really mattered.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)