I bought "Baby Wise" AND a James Dobson book.... - Page 3

[annettemarie]

Maybe our thrift stores are different, but they don't work like that. For one thing, they depend on donations. For another, they don't track inventory. So it's not like the person volunteering her time is going to say "Oh dear. We sold ten of those nice Ezzo books today. I'm going to go canvas my neighborhood to get people to donate more."

[Storm Bride]

Aside from the CIO issues, which is bad enough, isn't Babywise the one that strongly recommends a feeding schedule that can cause malnutrition, even starvation, in some infants? I seem to recall from another discussion about those books that they really push the scheduled feeding, to the point of implying that the mother is being weak and mistreating her baby if she "gives in" to their cries of hunger...and that the schedule is inadequate for many babies.

I have real qualms about deliberately taking books off the shelf, but I can certainly sympathize with the OP. I'm sure I recall diagnoses of Failure to Thrive, because of the Babywise feeding schedule. This stuff really scares me - not quite as much as the reigning king and queen of child abuse (pearls), but a lot.

[Snuzzmom]

Originally Posted by radishes

I sort of assumed people were upset about CIO books in general, not just Babywise, but I get your point. I totally understand the damaging psychological affects of CIO, but I really have to question the brain damage issue. I have a high needs baby. She is 7 months now and getting much easier in some respects, but when she was younger, she could and would scream. For hours. While I was holding her, rocking, on top of me, next to me, on dad, in the swing, getting a bath, shushing, patting, babywearing, you get the idea. High needs babies have a notoriously difficult time falling asleep. They are intense and easily overstimulated. Sometimes you can do everything, hold that baby close, and they still scream their brains out from exhaustion. For hours. Are all those babies brain damaged?

If this were true, my baby should be a vegetable. He had colic for 10 weeks and screamed morning til night. The reality is, at 2.5 he is off-the-charts verbal, physically coordinated, etc. I am not getting any sense of brain damage at all.

Maybe the difference is that he was comforted/ held while he was screaming and not left in a crib alone to do so. I can see how that would be a different scenario. But the screaming in and of itself causing brain damage? I don't buy that at all.

As to the OT... I hate those books, too, but something about this doesn't sit well with me. It isn't technically censorship but it certainly is in that spirit. Just because a person reads those books doesn't necessarily mean they are going to buy into them and follow every tenent therein.

[jeanine123]

Originally Posted by Storm Bride

Aside from the CIO issues, which is bad enough, isn't Babywise the one that strongly recommends a feeding schedule that can cause malnutrition, even starvation, in some infants? I seem to recall from another discussion about those books that they really push the scheduled feeding, to the point of implying that the mother is being weak and mistreating her baby if she "gives in" to their cries of hunger...and that the schedule is inadequate for many babies.

I have real qualms about deliberately taking books off the shelf, but I can certainly sympathize with the OP. I'm sure I recall diagnoses of Failure to Thrive, because of the Babywise feeding schedule. This stuff really scares me - not quite as much as the reigning king and queen of child abuse (pearls), but a lot.

Yes it is. So much so that the AAP has recommended against using the book and it's information.

http://www.ezzo.info/Aney/letterofconcern.pdf

http://www.ezzo.info/Aney/coversheet...uctorynote.pdf

http://www.ezzo.info/Aney/hcpsigners.pdf

http://www.ezzo.info/AAP/aap_media_alert.htm

[Rico'sAlice]

Originally Posted by annettemarie

Maybe our thrift stores are different, but they don't work like that. For one thing, they depend on donations. For another, they don't track inventory.

I guess they are different. The ones here whenever I go in to donate stuff they tell me "We're not taking anymore 3-6mo clothes, we have too many and they are not selling but we really need more 12-18mo stuff." "We'll take all of these Stephen King paperbacks, but we don't have space for your biographies." Maybe the thrift stores near me are just spoiled.

[sapphire_chan]

Originally Posted by radishes

Well, people can debate all they want about expert opinions; if you want to FIND someone who is well-respected to agree with you, you will. I'm not advocating CIO in any way, all I'm saying is that when the head of the sleep department at a nationally renowned children's hospital (CHOP, for those familiar with Philly) writes a book about sleep training that involves some limited version of CIO and says it is totally fine, .

I wish you'd put down the name of the book and the author.
http://www.chop.edu/consumer/jsp/div...c.jsp?id=77607 So it'd be Dr. Mindell who addresses "non-pharmacologic treatment of sleep problems in infants and toddlers" or the head of the department, Dr. Marcus, whose work is exclusively in the area of respiration effects on sleep?

Ah, it's Mindell. And here's the relevant study: http://www.journalsleep.org/ViewAbstract.aspx?pid=26636 (full text downloadable to pdf through the link on the right side)

From the study, which, it occurs to me is actually a literature review:
"combining sedative medication (antihistamine) with Extinction may produce a more immediate
response with reduced infant distress." This is her magical sleep cure? Drugging babies?

"The data, however, appeared equivalent until approximately week 4 of treatment when Positive Routines continued to produce additional improvement as Extinction reached a plateau."

Still reading through, trying to find an indication of why sleeping through the night is something to be desired in babies over 6 months (the first age mentioned in the article, although it also deals with studies mentioning babies sleeping through the night at 3 weeks. I would prefer to find evidence that sleeping through the night at 3 weeks is a good thing, but I'll be happy with them just giving evidence that it's positive at 6 months.)

Oh, I see... "sleeping through the night (5 hours or more)"

[alwayshappy]

Originally Posted by kamilla626

.... so no one else would.

Actually, there were THREE copies of Baby Wise along with the Dobson book at the thrift store. I'm torn about what to do with them now, but I feel as though maybe I stopped 3 new moms from reading - and following - their "techniques".

why would you do that?? so you don't agree with the books teachings (as I dont either) but you have no right to stop others from reading them.

I don't agree with unschooling or dry nursing or EB past age 2 but I hardly race downtown and remove all books on the subject to save new moms from reading about it.

Its their free will to read what they want and parent as they want - as you do. I magine If I came to your house and removed all pucblications relating to parenting methods you use to "save you from reading or follwing those techniques" as I didnt believe in them.

[annettemarie]

Originally Posted by alwayshappy

why would you do that?? so you don't agree with the books teachings (as I dont either) but you have no right to stop others from reading them.

I don't agree with unschooling or dry nursing or EB past age 2 but I hardly race downtown and remove all books on the subject to save new moms from reading about it.

Its their free will to read what they want and parent as they want - as you do. I magine If I came to your house and removed all pucblications relating to parenting methods you use to "save you from reading or follwing those techniques" as I didnt believe in them.

This makes no sense to me. Why doesn't she have the right to purchase whatever she wants from a shop? And how does that stop someone else from reading the book? I purchase tons of books, both new and used. Does that somehow unjustly censor others as well? Or is it just the intent that makes it bad?

[sapphire_chan]

Originally Posted by faerierose

I believe the damage referred to is a result of crying alone for long periods of time. The baby believes itself abandoned and it's brain produces too much Cortisol.
At least I hope so, I too have had two very high needs infants that cried for long stretches of time.

Yeah it's the separation, according to the article.

[dido1]

I believe that buying a book with the intent of preventing someone else from reading it IS censorship. I loathe the teachings of Ezzo and believe it is child abuse. But free speech is a right in most countries. So is a person's right to read crappy parenting advice. Many people believe nursing a child past 1 is abusive, that homeschooling is neglectful, that not vaccinating is abusive. The list goes on. Parents have the right to choose what they read, regardless of how we feel about it.

[sapphire_chan]

Originally Posted by Rico'sAlice

I guess they are different. The ones here whenever I go in to donate stuff they tell me "We're not taking anymore 3-6mo clothes, we have too many and they are not selling but we really need more 12-18mo stuff." "We'll take all of these Stephen King paperbacks, but we don't have space for your biographies." Maybe the thrift stores near me are just spoiled.

Very. And in thrift stores like that, I wouldn't buy the books to get rid of them. I'd donate, buy, redonate, rebuy, donate, rebuy, donate, rebuy, ask if they've got any, are they sure? I thought I saw a copy yesterday?, parenting books I wanted people to have.

[alwayshappy]

Originally Posted by Momtwice

I object to censorship, but I object to child abuse manuals more.

but thats YOUR interpretation of child abuse - not the laws.

I think that kids not getting a proper education is abusive, I think depriving children of toys and gifts at Christmas and birthdays is abusive, heck I even think dry nursing is abusive, but I cant go do anything about these either as its not against the law and the parents are within their rights to do it and read about it.

and to be honest - I thought everyone here was wanting kids and parents to be wordly, knowledgeable and informed .... if you dont read or see all sides how can you be making informed decisions ??

[Bluegoat]

I wonder if a better course of action might have been to talk to the book-shop owner, if possible, and point out that those books have been warned against by the APP?

The owner might decide not to sell them, or at least have the information to pass on to those who might want to buy them.

[sapphire_chan]

Originally Posted by alwayshappy

why would you do that?? so you don't agree with the books teachings (as I dont either) but you have no right to stop others from reading them.

I don't agree with unschooling or dry nursing or EB past age 2 but I hardly race downtown and remove all books on the subject to save new moms from reading about it.

If you think those things are abusive and you don't spend $1 to get a book on the topic off the shelves of you local thriftstore, I think you're morally wrong. I strongly disagree with your choice to not take simple action in the face of child abuse.

My apologies for being classist and assuming you have $1 to spare for something you feel strongly about.

[annettemarie]

Originally Posted by dido1

I believe that buying a book with the intent of preventing someone else from reading it IS censorship. I loathe the teachings of Ezzo and believe it is child abuse. But free speech is a right in most countries. So is a person's right to read crappy parenting advice. Many people believe nursing a child past 1 is abusive, that homeschooling is neglectful, that not vaccinating is abusive. The list goes on. Parents have the right to choose what they read, regardless of how we feel about it.

OK, so buying a book with the intention to follow it is OK, and buying a book to learn more is OK, and buying a book to make one of those cute book purses is OK, but not buying a book that you plan on tossing in the bin? Because that somehow (a) impedes on the author's right to free speech and (b) stops other people from finding the same book in the bookstore or library? What about the OP's right to spend her money as she chooses? I'm not buying the censorship argument. You could probably sell me on it being a waste of money though.

[annettemarie]

Originally Posted by Bluegoat

I wonder if a better course of action might have been to talk to the book-shop owner, if possible, and point out that those books have been warned against by the APP?

The owner might decide not to sell them, or at least have the information to pass on to those who might want to buy them.

I've actually done this with a local Christian book store that sold the Ezzo books. I pointed out what it said, showed her, and she agreed that it wasn't the brand of Christianity she wished to sell in her shop. Alas, I'm sure that's censorship according to someone's definition as well.

[alwayshappy]

Originally Posted by annettemarie

This makes no sense to me. Why doesn't she have the right to purchase whatever she wants from a shop? And how does that stop someone else from reading the book? I purchase tons of books, both new and used. Does that somehow unjustly censor others as well? Or is it just the intent that makes it bad?

its the intent to stop others reading books SHE doesnt approve of.

Who presumes that the way they do things is the way EVERYONE should do things ..... thats how cults get started!

[Viola]

Originally Posted by AllisonR

Would like to add, it isn't called Farenheit 451 for nothing. I literally tried to burn "What to Expect When you are Expecting" and IT WOULD NOT BURN. I tried matches, lighters, a blow torch..... if the pages were separated a lot, a few could be burned at a time, but the chemical smell was awful. I gave up.

For some reason, this cracked me up. I was thinking burning also, maybe in the winter when you use a fireplace, if you have one in your house.

[kamilla626]

Originally Posted by alwayshappy

Its their free will to read what they want and parent as they want - as you do. I magine If I came to your house and removed all pucblications relating to parenting methods you use to "save you from reading or follwing those techniques" as I didnt believe in them.

Well if you were to come into my house and remove things that belong to me...? I'm pretty sure that's a felony.

What I did was buy some books that I have no intention of using. Is it just as wrong to buy books and then never get around to reading them? (I do that all the time, too!) I didn't steal them. I didn't prevent anyone from finding the same information at a bookstore or on the internet. I didn't specifically confront ANYONE and say, "What you are reading is wrong". I did not infringe upon anyone's "free will". I don't have that much power.

[alwayshappy]

Originally Posted by sapphire_chan

If you think those things are abusive and you don't spend $1 to get a book on the topic off the shelves of you local thriftstore, I think you're morally wrong. I strongly disagree with your choice to not take simple action in the face of child abuse.

My apologies for being classist and assuming you have $1 to spare for something you feel strongly about.

because its their right do do those things as parents - none of it is against the law, its not my right to impose my parenting decisions and choices on others. The fact I find them to be detrimental to a child is my personal view and one not shared by the law. In my eyes its wrong, but I wouldnt presume to ensure everyone raises their children as I raise mine.

No need to apologise for being classist - you hadn't reached that yet.