or Connect
Mothering › Mothering Forums › Mom › Parenting › Ridiculous Natural Consequence
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Ridiculous Natural Consequence - Page 6

post #101 of 118
Usually risks which are unacceptable are well known. There are laws about making your kids wear seatbelts and there are laws which prevent parents from letting their children smoke cigarettes. Parents have been prosecuted in the past for being so neglectful that their children sustained third degree burns from sun exposure.

As far as I am aware, there have been no parents prosecuted for allowing their children to take a ride in the car.

It's common sense.

http://www.newsnet5.com/news/3323192/detail.html
post #102 of 118
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mom2Joseph View Post

HOWEVER, keep reading here, lately, here in FL, where I have lived my entire life, the weather has been gorgeous. Gorgeously deceptive. A wonderful breeze and the sun shining and you just want to live in it forever. Days like that you can forget that burns that bad can happen. Seriously.
The weather doesn't have to be nice to get a bad sunburn. You can get just as bad a burn on an overcast day as a sunny day.

The insides of my nostrils have been sunburnt because the sun's rays were reflecting off snow.

4th paragraph of 'the sun's rays':
http://www.healthseakers.com/pages/sun/sunguide.html

2nd sentence:
http://www.forkshospital.org/healthlinks/sunburn.html
post #103 of 118
Quote:
Originally Posted by graceomalley View Post
The weather doesn't have to be nice to get a bad sunburn. You can get just as bad a burn on an overcast day as a sunny day.

The insides of my nostrils have been sunburnt because the sun's rays were reflecting off snow.

4th paragraph of 'the sun's rays':
http://www.healthseakers.com/pages/sun/sunguide.html

2nd sentence:
http://www.forkshospital.org/healthlinks/sunburn.html

I don;t think that anyone has said otherwise...
post #104 of 118
I didn't say anyone had. I'm just up on my soapbox trying to give out as much information as possible because the misinformation and lack of understanding about sunburn in this thread has really shocked me.

I think I'll go and make myself a signature about it
post #105 of 118
Quote:
Originally Posted by graceomalley View Post
Usually risks which are unacceptable are well known. There are laws about making your kids wear seatbelts and there are laws which prevent parents from letting their children smoke cigarettes. Parents have been prosecuted in the past for being so neglectful that their children sustained third degree burns from sun exposure.

As far as I am aware, there have been no parents prosecuted for allowing their children to take a ride in the car.

It's common sense.

http://www.newsnet5.com/news/3323192/detail.html

That article was about a parent allowing very young children/infants to become sunburned. This is a *completely* different scenario, and has nothing whatsoever to do with the OP.

There is a big difference in not providing sunscreen to your child (esp in the case of an infant/toddler who has no choice...its not like they can reach over and put it on themselves!), and offering sunscreen to an 8 yr old who chooses not to wear it.

And we dont really know the extent of the 8 yr old's burn, yes he went to the hospital, but thats sometimes what people do when they are in pain. If his parents arent sitting in jail right now, then obviously it did not meet the hospital's criteria for neglect/something to report.


Katherine
post #106 of 118
Quote:
Originally Posted by graceomalley View Post
How's this for a better analogy. In the early 1900s, parents didn't know that tobacco was dangerous. They let their kids have a smoke every now and then. Should they be held responsible for those kids then getting lung cancer? Of course not. BUT if a parent these days lets their child smoke cigarettes of course they should be held responsible. We all know the risks. To suggest otherwise is the ridiculous thing.).
I'm quite amazed at the amount of control everyone here thinks that have over their kids.

If you had a 16 yr old, for example, who chose to smoke despite all your education and advice to the contrary....how exactly would you "not let them" smoke? And how would your actions affect your relationship with your child? And do you think that damage would be worth it?

Its interesting, because i posted the original scenario (just a summary) on a radical unschooling/mindful parenting site, and got completely different answers/suggestions/ideas that what the majority of posts here contain.


Katherine
post #107 of 118
Quote:
Originally Posted by graceomalley View Post
I didn't say anyone had. I'm just up on my soapbox trying to give out as much information as possible because the misinformation and lack of understanding about sunburn in this thread has really shocked me.

I think I'll go and make myself a signature about it

what exactly are you referring to?
post #108 of 118
Quote:
Usually risks which are unacceptable are well known. There are laws about making your kids wear seatbelts and there are laws which prevent parents from letting their children smoke cigarettes. Parents have been prosecuted in the past for being so neglectful that their children sustained third degree burns from sun exposure.
Wow. I really can't believe that you are seriously comparing letting a kid choose to not wear sunblock and getting burned to not buckling up your kid in the car, or providing a minor with cigarettes. That's just phenomenal.

As far as I'm aware, there are NO laws that say you MUST put sunblock on your child, or suffer legal consequences. Sure, letting kids get a THIRD DEGREE burn is pretty bad and I kind of think you have to go to some sort of effort to not notice your kid is burning that badly. I can't imagine not noticing, but then, my family doesn't burn as long as we don't spend sunup to sundown in the sun, with no shade and no going inside at all, so

Also, I personally don't consider not wearing sunblock an "unacceptable risk" because, well, you know what? Sunblock doesn't prevent you from getting cancer later in life. All it does is make you THINK you're protected from that bad mean ol' cancer-causing sun.
post #109 of 118
Quote:
Originally Posted by saimeiyu View Post
Sure, letting kids get a THIRD DEGREE burn is pretty bad and I kind of think you have to go to some sort of effort to not notice your kid is burning that badly. I can't imagine not noticing, but then, my family doesn't burn as long as we don't spend sunup to sundown in the sun, with no shade and no going inside at all, so
The one time my son got a very bad burn was when we spent several days at the cottage on the lakefront (this is in MI), my son DID have sunscreen on, but going in and out of the water and sweating washed some of it off, and even though i reapplied after a time, because he was somewhat wet, it didnt really take. He played out all day, and came in at evening time....then the burn hit him, and he spent the better part of the next hour in a cold shower, crying and freaking out, while i sped miles into town for some burn relief meds...neither of us (nor any of the other adults present) had ANY idea he was burning that badly. I could see streaks down his back that werent burned, where the sunblock must have worked (as it ran down his back due to the wetness)....my son is a redhead, but doesnt burn like my redhead niece (who gets red cheeks if she is out in the sun for two seconds), my son can be out w/o sunscreen and not burn quickly. So yes, we were surprised at the severity of the burn. I would say that for most burns, you dont necessarily realize how bad it is until its much later.

And my son, who would resist putting on sunscreen alot before that, has said he will never refuse again. And i've done my part by getting him a swimshirt and a variety of different types of sunblock (spray on, stick for the face) to make application easier, less messy, and is more acceptable to him "sensory" wise (he hated the goopy lotion type.)


Katherine
post #110 of 118
I'm not much of an A or B thinker, at least when it comes to my kid. I don't see it as A) he wears sunblock or B) he doesn't get to play at the beach. We've always been able to work something out, and maybe it's the confidence that of course we will work something out that makes the difference.
post #111 of 118
Quote:
Originally Posted by LotusBirthMama View Post
Link, please.
The link provided is actually not what I was referring to. Most sunscreens contain nanoparticles. Upon exposure to light (you're going to be in the sun!), the nanoparticles themselves form free radicals that could result in cancer, if they reach the living skin cells under the strateum cornum. The industry claims they can't penetrate the outer layer of the skin. Do you believe them? I don't. Some research says the nanoparticles can penetrate the outer "dead" layer, some says they can't. They definitely can when there's broken skin, even if it's just a tiny bit you wouldn't even notice.

Quote:
Ok..so the sunscreen isn't causing cancer, but rather people think they are safe from risk (since they aren't getting burned) and get overexposed and thus develop melanoma. Do I have that right?
Unfortunately, no. Look up nanoparticles. They've never undergone any sort of official safety testing. They accumulate in the environment. Some of them kill plants, animals and bacteria. And we have some evidence they can cause skin cancer through the formation of free radicals, which damage DNA. Most sunscreens nowadays contain nanoparticles. If you are going to put on sunscreen, you need to find one that protects against both UVA and UVB and that does not contain nanoparticles. Otherwise, you're either not preventing cancer because you aren't protecting against UVA and UVB, or you're using an unproven product that might cause the exact problems you're hoping to avoid.

Oh, and aside from all of that, there is also evidence that applying sunscreen all the time increases the risk of cellular damage the times you forget. Basically, it's good to get a little sun now and then - it can prevent skin cancer.
post #112 of 118
I don't really understand the huge debate here over whether or not this was abusive. Maybe they didn't realize he would burn that badly. Okay, fine, then unintentionally letting him burn would not be abusive. However, when you're taking your kid to the ER for a severe burn and you're feeling good about it, feeling that your kid got what he deserved? THAT is abuse. Perhaps to some people abuse is all about intent to cause physical harm, but I completely disagree. Let me give a little example. When I was in sixth grade, a boy in my class, a friend of mine, basically assaulted me at lunch. He got me behind a door, twisted my arm very painfully behind my back and said he wouldn't let go until I told him he could touch my butt. I was terrified. The boy was suspended from school for sexual assault, but the administrators apparently didn't think it was serious enough to bother calling my parents or letting me call them. This, of course, was not my parents' fault. They had nothing to do with it, they weren't there, they had no control over it. No abuse there. But then I went home that day and told my stepmother what had happened. I was crying. I was afraid of what the boy would do to me when he came back to school. My arm was still hurting. You know what my stepmother did? She laughed. Then she said, "You're crying about that?" Then she laughed some more. When my dad got home, she told him about it at the dinner table, laughing all the while. Then my dad laughed about it.

And screw anyone who thinks their attitude wasn't abusive. Parents do not have to intentionally physically injure their child to treat them in a way that is abusive. To think they do is naive.

So the burn itself may have been unintentional and therefore may not qualify as abuse, but the attitude about the burn? Most definitely abusive.
post #113 of 118
Quote:
Originally Posted by Plummeting View Post
I don't really understand the huge debate here over whether or not this was abusive. Maybe they didn't realize he would burn that badly. Okay, fine, then unintentionally letting him burn would not be abusive. However, when you're taking your kid to the ER for a severe burn and you're feeling good about it, feeling that your kid got what he deserved? THAT is abuse. Perhaps to some people abuse is all about intent to cause physical harm, but I completely disagree. Let me give a little example. When I was in sixth grade, a boy in my class, a friend of mine, basically assaulted me at lunch. He got me behind a door, twisted my arm very painfully behind my back and said he wouldn't let go until I told him he could touch my butt. I was terrified. The boy was suspended from school for sexual assault, but the administrators apparently didn't think it was serious enough to bother calling my parents or letting me call them. This, of course, was not my parents' fault. They had nothing to do with it, they weren't there, they had no control over it. No abuse there. But then I went home that day and told my stepmother what had happened. I was crying. I was afraid of what the boy would do to me when he came back to school. My arm was still hurting. You know what my stepmother did? She laughed. Then she said, "You're crying about that?" Then she laughed some more. When my dad got home, she told him about it at the dinner table, laughing all the while. Then my dad laughed about it.

And screw anyone who thinks their attitude wasn't abusive. Parents do not have to intentionally physically injure their child to treat them in a way that is abusive. To think they do is naive.

So the burn itself may have been unintentional and therefore may not qualify as abuse, but the attitude about the burn? Most definitely abusive.
Well, that is an interesting point. Do we know for sure that they acted this way toward him, though? This thread has gotten very long and maybe I missed it. All I saw was some defensive comments the parents made.
post #114 of 118
Quote:
Originally Posted by ShadowMom View Post
Well, that is an interesting point. Do we know for sure that they acted this way toward him, though? This thread has gotten very long and maybe I missed it. All I saw was some defensive comments the parents made.
Exactly.

Quote:
Originally Posted by olliepop View Post
I don't know if it worked to teach him a lesson. I'm getting all my info from MIL, but I guess we'll see what happens the next time they ask him to wear sunscreen.

I don't think I was clear in the OP, but they do not practice GD...at all.
The OP hasn't even talked to the parents. Who knows what really happened?


.
post #115 of 118
Quote:
Originally Posted by Plummeting View Post
However, when you're taking your kid to the ER for a severe burn and you're feeling good about it, feeling that your kid got what he deserved? THAT is abuse.
We don't know what they feel. We know what it was said that they indicated. Big difference.

Like I said way back when this thread was still relatively young, my mother would generally have said "that's what happens when _____." But she'd also have felt terrible that whatever it was had happened and would have always made every future effort to ensure it wasn't repeated. My own son -- resident climber -- not so long ago toppled off of a chair he scampered up on when I had my back turned. I'm quite sure I probably made some manner of "that's what happens" remark a la my mother, but that doesn't mean I didn't hover over him watching like an absolute hawk when he got in the vicinity of furniture until he finally caught on to how to get down safely, and still watch like a semi-hawk just to make sure. Not saying "oh my god I'm a terrible mother, what a huge mistake!" and feeling smug about poor decisions and poor outcomes are two different things.
post #116 of 118
Quote:
Originally Posted by abac View Post
A trip to the ER for a sunburn?
My brother, at age 14, spent an afternoon canoeing in an aluminum canoe on a very sunny lake, with his shoes/socks off and pants rolled up. Because of his sensory issues, his legs otherwise NEVER saw the light of day. And like a pp, the whole family is 'melanin challenged'. (My dd skin is so fair you can see her veins!)

He got 2nd degree burns that were so bad the entire exposed are of his legs BLISTERED and he couldn't walk for a week.

I can see how a trip to the ER would be necessary.

I'm appalled that the parents let him get so sunburned that was necessary. At least my brother was off on his own (and had been warned!)
post #117 of 118
I think commom sense has to factor in somewhere. I have young kids who do not alwasy come when I call them and we live in an apartment complex where people sometimes drive too fast.....do I just let them get hit by a car or do I ignore natural consequence and run like hell and grab my child from danger?
I don't think I would have ruined the day for everyone, but I would make the child refusing to wear sunblock remain in the shade all day. I speak from experience as my 7 year old is a HUGE hater of lotions, etc... but he is also a very light skinned child so no ifs ands or buts!
post #118 of 118
Quote:
Originally Posted by olliepop View Post
Apparently my 8 year old nephew was at the beach with his parents (my SIL) and refused to put on sunscreen. (They live in Florida.) So instead of figuring out a way to get him to do it, they both pretty much said, "Fine, burn." And burn he did. So badly that he had to miss school the following day and take a trip to the ER.

Why? Why would you let that happen to your child?
That's dumb and missing the point.

I would have handled it very differently with an 8 year old.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Parenting
Mothering › Mothering Forums › Mom › Parenting › Ridiculous Natural Consequence