When did structure become a bad thing?
Find a Conversation
| Fri, 07-30-2004 - 8:19am |
We used to live next door to a "no structure" family. The kids ran wild in the neighborhood, the mom never planned dinner so lord only knows if and when the kids ate. Sorry, I don't think that's a good way to live. My kids know we eat dinner at 6:30, so they have to be home.
I can see taht you wouldn't demand that an infant go to bed and wake up at precisely the same time, but is there ever a time to impose structure on a child? So lets say you are the freewheeling type and have always doen things whenever. What happens when you send your child to school where the bell rings at the same time every day?
As far as activities, I realize all kids are different, but when my kids were little, if we just did whatever, whenever, my kids woudl end up grumpy and overtired. My experience is that if say, we were at the beach and I say, oh heck, let's just stay later, the kids woudl be happy at first, but by the days end I would end up with whiny, overtired kids.
Maybe I'm just misinterpreting what I am reading, but I personally think structure is a good thing. When children are small, the structure includes naptimes, mealtimes, etc. As they get older it evolves into boundaries like "be home at 6 for dinner" or "you can't go into soemones house without telling me first". I couldn't imagine living without structure or boundaries for my kids.
Susan

Pages
Just something to think about-my dh runs an average of 40 miles a week. He is a distance runner who is a definate contender race-wise. He is FAST and AWESOME. For many years, he felt that because he was so fit, he could eat whatever he wanted. And for many years he could. Last year he went to the doctor (he is 35, btw) and was shocked to discover his cholesterol is quite high. You'd think that all that exercise would negate his poor eating habits, but it didnt. It caught up to him eventually.
I dont know how old you and your dh are, and I am completely done with this *debate* (because you never really debated any of my points), but dont think that exercise alone is enough to take away from eating cr@p 90 percent of the time.
dj
Edited 8/19/2004 10:45 pm ET ET by djknappsak
Dj
"Now when I need help, I look in the mirror" ~Kanye West~
<>
TIA
To answer your question, Cyducksmom already posted something rather close to my approach.
Much of your physician selection approach sounds much like what most people do - check board qualifications, other physician's opinions, etc. But to most people, I would wager inability to get into an American medical school (as opposed to having trained in a foreign country because that's where you lived) and a brutal bedside manner are seen as severe or even totally disqualifying minuses in the selection process.
I disagree. The approach of most people - as is evident on this very board - is to select a dr. merely by flipping thru their insurer's plan book and looking at addresses.
I prefer minimum screens and then I increase my odds of finding an intelligent dr. Like I said, a bedside manner is a bonus and from my experience, I have absolutely no problem with a cold-hearted but highly qualified dr. The dr. seeing hundreds of patients and is indeed busy and unwilling to hold my hand is fine with me - because he's seeing hundreds of patients and that's the only thing I care about - experience, problem solving, a dr. who's seen almost everything.
I've always seen it as my job to make the dr. stand still and answer my questions about the medical condition, not about the weather. I go into annual exams with written questions in hand (hopefully having glanced at the internet if I have specifics), and I learned not to move my butt out of the dr's office (no matter how many patients I saw in her waiting room) until every last one has been answered. Also, my DH is very clever and quicker on his feet than I. So, when I have a truly complicated medical concern, he comes with me.
I know of an excellent physician educated in Guadelajara. So I have little problem with non-US schooling. I look in the AMA directory for many things, especially how long ago the dr. graduated.
<> Again, I completely disagree. In thinking about this lately, I remembered how wonderful the drs. at college were. They came around to each freshman dorm to give us a great, fun sex ed. discussion and we had a race to see who could put the condom on the banana first. That was at age 16/17 for most of us. So OB/GYNs routinely see teens. I don't think college age is too late to discuss sex with a medical professional, when I will certainly have addressed sex with them yrs before that. Please don't even try to disagree with the fact that drs who work at a college are by far much more knowledgeable about the issues accompanying sex, STDs, emotions, birth control in college age men and women than are pediatricians. I want my children to get the right information, not just the quickest information. I don't think a pediatrician is good enough in this aspect. It's a crucial aspect of life and I want the whole person looked at, which is best done by GYNs, and especially those who work at colleges.
One of my concerns (you can call it paranoia if it makes you feel better) is incompetence in drs. As a lawyer, you must be aware that many drs. are truly incompetent. We have drs and nurses in the family and some of the malpractice they've witnessed is truly unsettling.
Regardless, that some OBGYNs work in colleges does not mean that all OBGYNs have experience with adolescents. Some focus their practices, say, in areas such as hormone replacement, infertility work, pregnancy complications, etc., and however excellent they are in those areas, it would be a mistake to assume that OBGYNs as a group have more experience or expertise in teen sexuality than pediatricians.
When you said your pediatrician would not need to discuss matters with your daughters because you would have an OBGYN by then, I assumed that you meant by age 12-14, not when they reached college! (Who, other than Doogie Hauser, is in college at an age where pediatricians are still seeing them?) I couldn't possibly disagree with you more about college age being soon enough for your daughters to be able to get private medical advice from a doctor.
A total lack of medical information is much more dangerous than the risk of a pediatrician giving out incorrect information, especially when you screen your doctors.
So you must believe that when it comes to sex, it's better to have a dr. address a child's concerns and even solve problems who is familiar with children rather than a dr. who specializes in the sexual health of women, i.e., the OB/GYN. I completely disagree. A girl needing medical advice or even medical intervention in her sexual health is best served by a physician who specializes in female sexual health and sexual health issues.
This is an interesting issue I hadn't considered before. Since our pediatricians will not be giving the pelvic anyway, any discussion about sex, STDs, birth control will just be repetitive of what I (and most parents) will be addressing. Yes, if they have a scorching case of herpes, they might possibly be more willing to inform their pediatrician than me. I hope not. I hope my girls and I continue to have a good, loving relationship and any pediatrician's discussion about sex will merely be redundant. And I also am not worried that I am being wholly naive in thinking children can wait until college to see an OB/GYN for a full-on pelvic exam, don't you?
Is it easier to punt the issue when you have a boy? I've read cyducksmom's posts and have no idea what your brilliant and superior approach is. A link or post # would've been helpful.
Pages