Pam Hartley

----------
>From: [email protected]
>To: [email protected]
>Subject: [Unschooling-dotcom] Digest Number 1592
>Date: Sat, Nov 17, 2001, 9:30 AM
>

> Telling people (or implying) that their medical problems
> are all caused by control issues is not helpful.

It can be, if their medical problems ARE all caused by control issues and
the person in question is ready to hear that.

It can be like intervention for a drug abuser, or the phone number of a
woman's shelter at the right time to a battered wife.

Sure, sometimes advice can be wrong, and sometimes even the right advice is
at the wrong time, but does that mean we stop throwing the possibilities out
there?

Pam

[email protected]

> It can be, if their medical problems ARE all caused by control
issues and
> the person in question is ready to hear that.

Give me an example or two of a medical problem caused by a control
issue.

Sheila

Tia Leschke

>
>Sure, sometimes advice can be wrong, and sometimes even the right advice is
>at the wrong time, but does that mean we stop throwing the possibilities out
>there?

I still like what's said at the beginning of most La Leche League
meetings. Take what you can use and leave the rest.
Tia

What you think of me is none of my business.
*********************************************************
Tia Leschke leschke@...
On Vancouver Island

Joseph Fuerst

:
>
>
> > Unfortunately, it's not that simple......who ONLY eats at home? Many
> > restaurants use peanut oil, which is often enough to cause a reaction.
> > Some even react simply to have the aroma of peanuts in the air.
> >
>
> Won't the child be with parents at restaurants until time to be able to
> read/ask/decide what to order that's safe?

Actually, I'm using a basically hypothetical example here to discuss the
*issue*. My child does have medically necessary dietary restrictions. And,
for our family, our daughter is only 'out' with appropraite adult
supervision...ours or friends. We have found that some "friends" (using the
term loosely here) are quite willing to lie about food our daughter has
ingested...and or feel that they are treating her by offering things she
likes, but is not supposed to eat. She's almost 7 now.....we want her to
enjoy outings with friends....it's a challenge at times when the friend's
parents may not be reliable.


> If I begin to control what my children eat, and totally reverse my advice
to
> other families who are having regular food-control issues in the absence
of
> death-threatening allergies, that won't make allergic kids any more or
less
> safe.
>
> Do we all control because some families don't want to consider loosening
up?

A local preschool in our area became a "no-nut" zone this year to protect
two students with nut allergies. It was a big deal...lawyers and
everything...about whether the school has the 'right' to restrict what
parents can pack in the little ones lunches just to enable TWO students to
attend.

Maybe "control" isn't the best description. We have always tried to allow
for much choice within what's allowable. And parents are the ones
*choosing* what foods come into the home...thereby restricting or
controlling the child's choices. Vegetarians may or may not allow their
children to be carnivores.....but I imagine that since they find it
unacceptable, they've only allowed vegan eating.

I am of the thinking that children need to be in charge of their eating as
much as possible....if they can maintain an awareness of their body's
hunger-satiation signals...as well as an awareness of the feelings they get
from specific foods, they'll most likely end up eating a balanced diet and
meet their unique body's needs. With this guiding principle, we hope the
youngsters will be able to try 'new' foods when they have more freedom to
choose and determinr their own way (e.g., we have never once served
brussels sprouts here....they'll need to try those somewhere else.

>
> That's the way this culture has been (and largely still is). ALL kids
have
> early bedtimes; then no kids feel unburdened. ALL kids have to go to
school,
> then parents don't have to defend their decision to send kids to school.
ALL
> kids have to stay in when it's raining, so those parents who let their
kids
> go out and splash in gutters and puddles are Bad Parents.

I'm not saying "ALL kids need ..." in any form.
>
> I think treating children as people is good.
>
Me, too.

I have a close friend who's here at least weekly, sometimes daily for a
> while, who housesits. She can't eat pecans or walnuts. When she will be
> over we have none in food, and none out. She asks at restaurants. We
remind
> other people. It's a matter of course and a matter of fact. Another
friend
> can't have wheat, so we don't give her gifts of bread or cookies and we
don't
> offer her pizza.
>
Maybe we could trust you to take our daughter out and respest her needs.

> I'm sorry your child can't be in a park where a person has eaten a peanut
> butter sandwich. That's harsh. There are whole countries with hardly a
> peanut. If this allergy isn't grown out of, maybe moving would make life
way
> easier.
>
See above re: hypotheticals and the local preschool.

Susan


> Sandra
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>

Joseph Fuerst

> Even sitting at a park where someone else had eaten a PB&J could be a
> serious health hazard.
>
> How? Just curious.
> Indiana Tami
>
If any peanut residue is left behind...on a park bench, a napkin left on
the ground, if the PB&J eater got some peanut butter residue on his/her
hands that wasn't completely cleaned off, the allergic child could touch it
and have the full blown allergic reaction. Oarents coping with this will
usually carry a "safety kit" to try to stop the reaction before it becomes
life threatening.
Susan