Paranoid Parenting: Why Ignoring the Experts May Be Best for Your Child

"PF Riley" wrote
RECOMMENDATIONS
The AAP recommends the following:
3. Pediatricians should urge parents to avoid television viewing for
children under the age of 2 years.
Again, how is making a recommendation to "urge" parents to "avoid"
television for kids under two the same as saying, "No TV?"

Avoiding TV means No TV. Look it up.

If the AAP feels something must be an absolute, they say so:
"All bicyclists should wear properly fitted bicycle or multisport
helmets each time they ride."
(Does it say, "Bicyclists are encouraged to wear a helmet?" No.)

The difference is that the AAP lobbies for laws forcing all kids
to wear helmets when they ride a bicycle. So far it is not trying
to make TV illegal for 1-year-olds -- it is just saying that parents
should voluntarily prevent their 1-year-olds from watching TV.

claim? He claimed that the AAP Policy Statement was made without any
"science" or "facts."

That's true. There is no science behind those recommendations. It
is signed by a committee of peds, not scientists. Most of the
references are to opinion articles in medical and lay journals.
Where it cites facts, the sources are dubious, and they don't support
the conclusions anyway.

TV was just the first example. The other AAP recommendations are
pathetic also.

On Sat, 02 Aug 2003 23:11:02 GMT, "Roger Schlafly"
wrote:

"PF Riley" wrote

claim? He claimed that the AAP Policy Statement was made without any
"science" or "facts."

That's true. There is no science behind those recommendations. It
is signed by a committee of peds, not scientists. Most of the
references are to opinion articles in medical and lay journals.
Where it cites facts, the sources are dubious, and they don't support
the conclusions anyway.

Please be more specific.

TV was just the first example. The other AAP recommendations are
pathetic also.

All of them?

PF

"PF Riley" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 02 Aug 2003 21:00:27 GMT, "JG" wrote:

"PF Riley" wrote in message
...

On Fri, 01 Aug 2003 17:43:48 GMT, "Roger Schlafly"
wrote:

"Elizabeth Reid" wrote

The AAP is not really recommending TV at any age. The point of the
above statement is: No TV before age 2.

Wrong.

Right, PF (see citation below).

Here may be found the AAP Policy Statment on television:

http://www.aap.org/policy/re0043.html

And "here may be found" another one:

http://www.aap.org/policy/re9911.html

from the above:
RECOMMENDATIONS
The AAP recommends the following:
1. ...
2. ...
3. Pediatricians should urge parents to avoid television viewing for
children under the age of 2 years. Although certain television
programs
may be promoted to this age group, research on early brain
development
shows that babies and toddlers have a critical need for direct
interactions with parents and other significant caregivers (eg, child
care providers) for healthy brain growth and the development of
appropriate social, emotional, and cognitive skills. Therefore,
exposing
such young children to television programs should be discouraged.

Again, how is making a recommendation to "urge" parents to "avoid"
television for kids under two the same as saying, "No TV?"

Oh, puhleeze! "I urge you to avoid television" is absolutely equivalent
to "I recommend no television." Talk about quibbling! In the absence
of any law prohibiting young infants from watching TV, a physician's
stating even a simple, flat, "No television" (i.e., w/o the preface of
"I recommend") is nothing more than a recommendation.

If the AAP feels something must be an absolute, they say so:

"All bicyclists should wear properly fitted bicycle or multisport
helmets each time they ride."

You want to argue, PF? The above statement is not an absolute; "All
bicyclists MUST (or SHALL, or WILL) wear..." would be an absolute.
There's a lot of difference between "should"/"may"/"ought to" and
"shall"/"will"/"must." (I recently sat in on a hearing in which this
very topic was the crux of the petitioner's case. He [a friend who's an
attorney] was seeking an injunction to have a statement excluded from a
pre-election voters' guide. Colorado statutes require those submitting
such statements [to election officials] to include their address;
specifically, the wording states, "...SHALL include his/her address..."
Well, one statement that was submitted [arguing for a tax increase to
which the petitioner was opposed] didn't include the author's address.
The judge agreed that "shall" means "must," not "may" or "should," but
that the statement be allowed [e.g., included in the voters' guide]
because a higher court, in a similar case, had ruled that omission of a
statement provider's address wasn't a material flaw. Judicial activism
again rears its uglty head...)

(Does it say, "Bicyclists are encouraged to wear a helmet?" No.)

"Should" = "are encouraged to," PF. Again, "should" is not the same as
"must" or "shall."

The whole purpose to debating this fine point is because it is the
premise of Roger's conclusion that the recommendations are "wacky and
foolish." As is typical, Roger's complaint is based on nothing more
than his own misunderstanding.

Trying to shift the focus, PF? Isn't that weaseling? g

You may look up the references on the webpage. Please address each
of
these references and explain why you still believe they have no
"science" or "facts" to back up these statements.

YOU go look up the references, PF; I bet not one reseacher used
children
*LESS THAN TWO YEARS OLD* in the his/her study! (Talk about
weaseling!)

So it is my duty to do the research to support or refute Roger's
claim? He claimed that the AAP Policy Statement was made without any
"science" or "facts."

He was, I believe, referring to the portion of the statement regarding
kids 2.

I can't exactly be accused of weaseling since I
never made any claim to weasel from. In fact, I did a little of his
own homework for him. If he now fails to address what I've presented
to him, then, who's the weasel?

Look, PF, the subject is "TV and kids *2 years old*," not "TV and
kids." Show us some facts/research ("science") related to the effects
of television on the health of kids YOUNGER THAN TWO.

Note many of the
effects of television are things even JG would have to admit are
related to "health" (e.g., obesity). Why would, then, counseling by
a
pediatrician on television viewing be any different than counseling
by
an internist on eating habits or drug use?

LOL. I think I could find a correlation between *any* activity and
(physical and/or mental) health, PF.

Well, I'm glad you finally agree then that promotion of awareness of
bicycle helmets, booster seats, and choking hazards fall within the
realm of the AAP's commitment to the health of children.

Not at all. I'm saying that I, like the AAP, could (i.e., if I wanted
to, or if it served my purposes) draw correlations (CLAIM) that
everything is heath-related; I still maintain that there's a difference
between health and safety.

How wacky and foolish! Roger, please ask your grandmother: "Is it
better, in general, for a two-year-old, given the choice by his
parents, to engage in interactive activities such as talking,
playing,
singing, and reading with his parents or is it better for him to
watch
television instead?" Please let us know her answer.

I think just about everyone would agree that human interaction is
preferable (and that being active is healthier than sitting in front
ot
the tube for hours on end). The AAP could have issued statements
saying
"(We believe) Interaction with others is good for kids' development"
and
"Physical activity is good for kids' health" and then leave it up to
parents to determine how much interaction and activity their kids
got....but they didn't ('cause parents are dolts, PF?).

Bwahaha! I still don't get why you think snicker that raising one's
finger and giving such sage "advice" as, "Keep a close eye on your
child," or, "Feed him anything he won't choke on," or, "Physical
activity is good for kids' health," is any less insulting (and in fact
not even MORE insulting!) than giving targeted and specific warnings
on commonly overlooked (in the pediatrician's experience) safety
hazards, choking hazards, and factors that interfere with physical
activity.

Jeez, PF, I kinda thought you read my posts *sniff* g. I already
answered this for you (on 7/23); go to Google groups and find it.

JG

"JG" wrote
Look, PF, the subject is "TV and kids *2 years old*," not "TV and
kids." Show us some facts/research ("science") related to the effects
of television on the health of kids YOUNGER THAN TWO.

That was just the part I remembered. Looking back at it, it is
filled with other silly statements. Eg, here is a factoid:

In a random survey of parents with children in kindergarten
through sixth grade, 37% reported that their child had been
frightened or upset by a television story in the preceding year.[26]
http://www.aap.org/policy/re0043.html

Just 37%? I would expect the number to be a lot higher. This could
be explained merely by 37% of the kids watching The Wizard Of Oz
once a year.

What is the point of this factoid? Are we supposed to be raising kids
who never get upset? Not even once in a year? My kids get upset
about something every day (and that doesn't include watching TV).
There is no evidence that getting upset once a year from a TV
show is harmful.

"PF Riley" wrote
TV was just the first example. The other AAP recommendations are
pathetic also.
All of them?

I don't know -- I've only read a few. I assume that the recommendations
are reasonable when they involve pediatric medicine, as peds have
expertise in that. But when they discuss TV, guns, swimming, cars, etc,
the authors are clueless.

"JG" wrote in message
...

"Better" is subjective; when it comes to most *opinions*--and that's all
the AAP's advice about TV and infants is--the "betterness" of one over
another can't be proven.

No, not proven, but it can be discussed. He could present his "better"
source and explain why he thinks it is better.

Besides, this attitude places him in a logical contradiction. If it is
claimed that there is no way to establish that one thing is better than
another then claims that something is better are inherently false.
Presumably Roger could not agree and still stand by his statement.

--
CBI, MD

"Roger Schlafly" wrote in message
t...

Sounds reasonable to me. The AAP advice is foolish.


Especially when you don't understand it.

Your Help is Desperatly Needed to Stop Lead Poisoning in Children!
Hello MY Name is Shelly,
I'm writing this message in the hope of getting signatures/names for my crusade
against Lead Poisoning in Children. My 4 Children ( Brandon 5, Marissah 4,
Thomas 22 mos., and Jacob 6 mos.) were tested positive for lead poisoning! upon
testing of my appartment, we found that there were high levels of Lead!....
Each night as i layed my children down to sleep in their beds,i would watch
them kneel at the side of their beds to say their prayers,I would kiss them
goodnightand tuck them saftly into their beds so i thought.
Little did i Know that their rooms were where i left them each night to sleep
was loaded with lead! The one place i thought they were safe and sound,
Poisoned them!
My babies, My Sweet, innocent babies...I called everywhere i could think to
solve this matter, i even called my local Health Department. They informed me
that unless my childrens lead levels reach the dangerous level of 20 or above
they could not help me! i was so upset, i felt that no one cared about the
safty of my children but myself!
SO I made a vow to my children that i would fight the lagal system to have the
lead levels reduced.... Knowing that if i waited till their lead levels reached
20 they would already be suffering for the lead nad could experience learning
disabilities, Brain Damage and even Death in some cases!
I need to help my children and other Children!
and your help can put us one step closer to doing this!
below in an email address you can respond to, simply drop me a quick email and
tell me to put your name on the list!
Please also provide your email, the city and State you live in.
by signing this petition we can get these lead levels lowered! PLEASE WE REALLY
NEED YOUR HELP!
Signed,
Shelly In New York