Heartmama wrote (in her post on TCS Discussion 2 page 3):
"(heartmama wrote)"One reason is because I think it is unrealistic to confuse a willingness to
go with an absence of reluctance. "
Larsy responds: That would be a faulty theory.
Why is that a faulty theory? Have you never experiences the feeling of being
willing to do something you still harbored doubts about?? I have heard many
people describe such feelings, so I felt this was a possible condition the
child may experience. Why do you disagree?"
Actually, I agree. Sorry I wasn't clear about this. I agree, that would be a faulty theory, to confuse a willingness to go with an absence of reluctance.
"larsy writes "If it is truly a common preference, the child prefers going and solving the problem, than not doing so. Child might still be scared, but determined to confront the fear and do what child feels must be done to help with hir problem. A parent can support their child in this. "
Hmmm. I realize you will not agree, but you are essentially describing the state I feel TCS defines as coercion, which involves the feeling of coping with two opposing forces etc. I realize you feel it is not coercion for a parent to share a personal preference to the child about the situation they are in. I often feel TCS ignores the fact that such statements are more than
just objective observations when they happen in real life. It would be mighty hard for a sick 4 year old to not feel quite a lot of pressure from mommy worriedly noticing his symptoms and suggesting he go to the doctor."
I would think that a sick 4 yr old would be concerned about hir own symptoms, and turn to hir trusted advisor for ideas of what is wrong and what to do about it. How the communication over the issue goes can create coercion in the minds of the parent and/or child, or not. A child might trust their parents' advice, to go to the doctor for a look see and to explore the treatment options and decide to follow that course, despite feeling lousy and really not wanting to stir out of the house (gosh, remember when doctors used to make house calls?!).IRL, a parent might feel upset that their child is exhibiting certain symptoms and the parent's own medical past and possibly entrenched theories might be something that the parent needs to recognize as a factor in the advice they are giving their child- over-reaction would not be in the child's or the parent's best interests, for instance, or if the parent fears going to doctors they might not be the best person to be advising child about child's problem. Seperating out what is the parent's problem to deal with (without involving the child) and what is the child's problem to deal with (their symptoms) is important, to avoid coercion around medical issues- as well as, oh, about everything else
You are right, parents have a huge influence over their children. That is why we are thinking about it, so that parents do not misuse and abuse their power over their children. Some of what is accepted in our society as 'normal' interaction is, morally, abuse of power. It is hard and painful to realize, but I think it is true. Once realized, we can go on to find better ways to interact.
This is a matter of conscience as well as consciousness. Questioning and talking about it can help each person to examine the power issues for their self, honestly and openly, rather than accept possibly harmful memes from previous generations.
<snip> Heartmama wrote:
"I feel this is all good advice and would hope the parent would follow it. Unless the condition poses a health risk, I agree the child could just live with it. However, especially with a young child, I hope you are not saying to simply let a child die from untreated diabetes because it occasionally takes coercion from the parent to take the daily shots?"
I don't think children want to die; a parent has the obligation to help their child stay alive. If that includes life-saving medical intervention, then that is part of their life. If there is coercion in thier minds over this, they should continue to gather information and create new knowledge for themselves, in an effort to do away with the coercion.
"TCS parents here have made it pretty clear they agree to save their child from death even when it involves coercion. I assume this extends to getting treatment for a critically ill child, regardless of whether the child agrees. Does it?"
Well, goodness, I would expect any rational person is going to help another person live! This isn't a case of, say, people who believe in a specific religion (I forget which one it is- Jehovah's Witness? Christian Scientist?) that dictates that God says to not avail themselves of modern medical technology! Parents who treat their children non-coercively will help their children to stay alive, yes, even if they cannot find a way to help their child avoid the state of coercion in regard to life-saving medical treatment. Here again, though, the child is not being coerced into staying alive- children want to live. If they are in pain or are dreadfully fearful of something, those are the problems that need solving, preferably in a non-coercive way; but if it is a matter of time and things are moving fast and life-saving action must be taken immediately or death is a certainty- of course, a parent is going to take those life-saving steps.