or Connect
Mothering › Mothering Forums › Mom › Parenting › Parenting Multiples › who is right?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

who is right? - Page 2

post #21 of 30
Well, perhaps the comparison of birth interventions and speech development interventions wasn't the most perfect I could have chosen - it was the one that came to mind most easily in consideration of this forum.

I am surprised, though, that some readers considered it "not the same at all". Amy&4girls paraphrased another in saying, "As another poster said it is aiding a natural process..not hindering or skirting around it." In counterpoint, I'm pretty sure that birth attendants who (for example) manually dilate a cervix would characterize that intervention as "aiding a natural process". I'd have other words for it. :

I am NOT suggesting that someone should ignore a suspected problem and hope it goes away. I'm simply saying that it's rash to jump into therapy with an attitude of "it won't hurt" when the child may be completely within normal developmental ranges. (And the range of "norms" may be those of the wider society, or specific to your own extended family if you have observed a difference).

While many countered to say that the therapy never hurts the child because it's simply boosting and fostering a natural process, I don't think things are quite that clear-cut. I'll attempt a new example to illustrate my point.

If a parent launches into early intervention speech therapy with one child, the commitment of time made to the therapy and the associated assessments means there is less time for other activities, other kids in the family, etc. This reduced time may lead to other benefits for a family (eg. another child learns greater independence for a given task). Or the reduced time may lead to outcomes that are not so appealing.

Like everything else in family life, speech therapy isn't operating in a vacuum. I don't think it's "irresponsible" or "rolling the dice" to acknowledge that. I fully agree that we are here to serve our children and that it is not fair to jeopardize a child's well-being due to a parent's reluctance to accept that there's a problem. But equally, I think it's unfair to a child to over-react if there may not be any problem at all.

All I'm saying is "a modicum of caution, please!"
post #22 of 30
I get what you're saying, but therapy doesn't come before an evaluation. Would you argue that a concerned parent should not at least have their child evaluated? At that point, the SLP will give recommendations to the parents (which may be simply that the child does not appear to be behind enough to warrant services) and everyone can make a well-educated decision from there. That's all I'm saying - doesn't hurt to check it out.
post #23 of 30
Quote:
Originally Posted by 2+twins View Post
Would you argue that a concerned parent should not at least have their child evaluated?
Well, I guess that would depend whether the "concerned" meant "worried about the situation" or simply "curious/alert". And if the answer to that is "worried", then evaluation may be appropriate. But I would hope the parent do some introspective evaluation (in an effort to determine if the parent's worrying is an over-reaction) before involving professionals.

Here we go again. . . obviously I'm an "example whore"

Many of us have probably heard (or been participants in ) several incidents of new parents worrying about whether a newborn is still breathing during sleep, or fussing over how much clothing is appropriate. Said new parent might be quite stressed out and actually worried about the situation. (You know, the famous, "I woke up and realized it was 4am and she hadn't cried! I had to walk over to her crib to make sure she was still alive. My heart was pounding soooo fast!"). But the apprehension the parent feels is not the sole measure of whether the concern is valid. Most parents figure out that this level of concern is not warranted for most newborns. We talk to other parents, we get to know our baby. We figure it out without having to take the newborn in for medical evaluation that proves whether baby has normal sleep breathing patterns.

By all means, if someone has actual worry, researches the topic and looks within and still has concerns, go, go, go for that evaluation!

But don't just rush into because it's available and "it won't hurt". Another point I consider in these situations relates to the lengthy waits that one poster mentioned applied to early intervention speech therapy: Time taken to evaluate many normal children just to give their parents peace of mind is time taken away from children who have far greater need of those services. While I would not likely sacrifice my own children for the benefits to go to someone else's child, I am a member of a society and hope to do my part toward contributing to the best use of that society's resources.
post #24 of 30
Quote:
Originally Posted by Novella View Post
Hi there Lois Lane,

Could you explain this a little further. I'm confused. I'm reading:
  • The people at Early Intervention are of the opinion that multiples develop speech later than singletons.
  • Therefore, they enrolled them in therapy EARLIER than they would singletons.
Hi Novella,

Sorry I didn't reply to this sooner -- have been on holidays!

The thinking was that "they" tend to see twins with expressive language delays (and others, I imagine) and so we were worried when our girls had so few words at 15 months. The health unit nurse we talked with said she wished all kids could receive early therapy but the health unit can't afford it for singletons that early but can for twins since the delay is more common, and since there are (overall) fewer twins in the world (or region, as the case may be).

So the early intervention is something that "they" think has value for all children but don't have funding for, but one that "they" were able to do for multiples by the very nature of them being multiples.

Does that make any sense? I've been in a minivan for 12 days with three kids, so I'm not at my best...

Off to read the rest of the thread...
post #25 of 30
I agree with Novella that it is always wise to make thoughtful decisions -- to make sure you have information at hand and experience (of your own or others) to draw on and not leap into something without thinking it all through.

But I have to add my "yeah that" to those who are saying that early intervention for speech delays has little risk but much to gain. There is the assessment (K&O were at 3-9 month levels at 18 months in various expressive categories) to make sure there is a need, and, at least in our experience, the therapy was fun -- play based, relaxed, and (surprisingly to me) something I now use in talking to all little children. At this age, there was no stigma attached to the therapy (the therapist came to our home, and my DP or I attended classes in the evening) and it hasn't changed the way we look at K&O or how the world looks at K&O.

I know they would have talked eventually, even without the therapy. But the early therapy helped them get up to speed (and oh, are they ever up to speed) in a pretty short period of time. I sometimes wonder if we had waited, would it have taken longer to "catch up?" Of course, maybe they would have caught up on their own -- it's completely possible. But it was a positive experience for our family. To each his/her own!
post #26 of 30
Quote:
Originally Posted by LoisLane View Post
Hi Novella,

Sorry I didn't reply to this sooner -- have been on holidays!

The thinking was that "they" tend to see twins with expressive language delays (and others, I imagine) and so we were worried when our girls had so few words at 15 months. The health unit nurse we talked with said she wished all kids could receive early therapy but the health unit can't afford it for singletons that early but can for twins since the delay is more common, and since there are (overall) fewer twins in the world (or region, as the case may be).

So the early intervention is something that "they" think has value for all children but don't have funding for, but one that "they" were able to do for multiples by the very nature of them being multiples.

Does that make any sense? I've been in a minivan for 12 days with three kids, so I'm not at my best...

Off to read the rest of the thread...
Hi Lisa,

Thanks for the follow-up. I'm still confused. What I'm gathering from this response is that the health unit you were working with had different quotas of how many singletons they had funding for and how many multiple birth children they had funding for. Hence, it was easier to get your multiples into therapy b/c they were in a different "pool" and that pool had a higher percentage of funded spots in recognition that speech delays are more common with multiples.

Am I reading this right? Or do I now have "minivan brain"?! (It was only the last 7 hours for me, but it was an energetic and grueling 7 hours! )
post #27 of 30
This is just my opinion and how our twins and singleton daughter were. Our twins talked very early; actually everything they did was early. They have a cousin who is month younger than them and he talked late; he always grunted. I remember his parents and gradparents just grunting back at him. Our daughter also talked early, but not quite as early as our twins. They had over 30 words by the time they were 1; I kept track in their baby book. All of our children were using short sentences before they were two. I have worked with ages 3 months to three years old. All of them were different. The one thing I did notice was the boys talked later than the girls. I think your children will be fine. If they are not talking more by age 2 then I would have them checked. If they have had a lot of ear infections; that can cause them not to be talking as well. One of the children in my class at the daycare was 2 and wasn't talking a lot. The doctor put tubes in his ears because he had numerous infections and he was talking within a month.
post #28 of 30
My mother thought so. I believe she said her response was "oh, so you can talk!"
post #29 of 30
Quote:
Originally Posted by Novella View Post
Hi Lisa,

Thanks for the follow-up. I'm still confused. What I'm gathering from this response is that the health unit you were working with had different quotas of how many singletons they had funding for and how many multiple birth children they had funding for. Hence, it was easier to get your multiples into therapy b/c they were in a different "pool" and that pool had a higher percentage of funded spots in recognition that speech delays are more common with multiples.

Am I reading this right? Or do I now have "minivan brain"?! (It was only the last 7 hours for me, but it was an energetic and grueling 7 hours! )
Minivan brain I love it...

Sorry to keep confusing thing. I don't think it was different quotas for singletons and multiples, just an easier sell because of the twin thing. Like the health unit nurse could make her recommendation with 15month olds (well, get them on the list) because "Oh, twins are often speech delayed" and she probably wouldn't have been able to with a singleton unless there were other factors. But she felt, and the ST felt, that early intervention was excellent for all kids... they just noticed us more because they are twins (boy, it feels like that happens all the time) and were able to get the recommendation through with a "reason" for the delay -- being twins (who, as we all hear, often have expressive delays! Nice circular reasoning there...)

Have I just made it more muddled?
post #30 of 30
Quote:
Originally Posted by LoisLane View Post
Minivan brain I love it...

Sorry to keep confusing thing. I don't think it was different quotas for singletons and multiples, just an easier sell because of the twin thing. Like the health unit nurse could make her recommendation with 15month olds (well, get them on the list) because "Oh, twins are often speech delayed" and she probably wouldn't have been able to with a singleton unless there were other factors. But she felt, and the ST felt, that early intervention was excellent for all kids... they just noticed us more because they are twins (boy, it feels like that happens all the time) and were able to get the recommendation through with a "reason" for the delay -- being twins (who, as we all hear, often have expressive delays! Nice circular reasoning there...)

Have I just made it more muddled?
OK, I finally get it! Thanks for the clarification.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Parenting Multiples
Mothering › Mothering Forums › Mom › Parenting › Parenting Multiples › who is right?