Farren on thu 10 feb 00
I've been following the thread on babies in the studio and have found it
remarkable that more discussion has been placed on how the pediatric
pulmonoligist stated his case than on the case itself. I think he was
trying to emphasize that babies lungs in the first year are very
sensitive to irritants like dust and cigarette smoke. I also think that
no matter how clean a studio is the dust factor is difficult to control
and a baby's lung development could be at risk and he was trying to make
this clear. I'm sure he sees a lot more kids with preventable pulmonary
problems than we'd imagine and takes great pains to explain the dangers
to young lungs. However, he sees the child after the exposure and at
his or her most vulnerable. So, he was perhaps more vehement than we
would expect. Since he cannot know whether anyone's studio is clean
enough without visiting it, he is stating the case strongly so that
people realize the dangers in having an infant in the studio.
We do take more precautions as parents than previous generations did but
that is
because we are more aware of the dangers. To be accused of being
overprotective because one does not let a child breath in harmful dust
particles or play in a field being sprayed by insecticide is the
opposite extreme of the accusation of child abuse.
We are aware of these dangers because of advances in medical diagnosis
and treatment and
that's because children do suffer from respiratory problems of which the
causes are
now better understood. No one wants to be accused of child abuse because
she was trying to spend time with her child but if one knows that
something can have serious detrimental effects on a baby it is the
responsibility of the parent to avoid the danger. Also, there is
certainly a difference between a 3 month old baby and a 4 year old child
in terms of development, which the doctor implied in his post.
I do not understand the logic of stating that one's children are fine so
what one did must be fine. Children survived workhouses but we don't
endorse sending them there just because the majority survived. I, for
one, am happy to learn how better to protect my children's health and I
appreciate the advice of the doctor and that he took the time to give a
professional opinion. So, thank you, Doctor Amirav.
Patricia
Ron Roy on mon 14 feb 00
I think there is a lot of sense in what Patricia says here. Let us not
assume the best when dealing with issues of this sort. We are finding out
more all the time about these hazards.
I have never seen a studio I would keep a baby in for more than a little
time - in fact most studios - including schools - I would imagine unsafe
for animals as well.
I am not saying there are no safe studios - I am saying I have never seen any.
One of the more dangerous situations are canvas covered work tables -
imagine what happens every time a piece of clay is slammed down on that
uncleanable surface.
RR
>----------------------------Original message----------------------------
>I've been following the thread on babies in the studio and have found it
>
>remarkable that more discussion has been placed on how the pediatric
>pulmonoligist stated his case than on the case itself. I think he was
>trying to emphasize that babies lungs in the first year are very
>sensitive to irritants like dust and cigarette smoke. I also think that
>no matter how clean a studio is the dust factor is difficult to control
>and a baby's lung development could be at risk and he was trying to make
>
>this clear. I'm sure he sees a lot more kids with preventable pulmonary
>problems than we'd imagine and takes great pains to explain the dangers
>to young lungs. However, he sees the child after the exposure and at
>his or her most vulnerable. So, he was perhaps more vehement than we
>would expect. Since he cannot know whether anyone's studio is clean
>enough without visiting it, he is stating the case strongly so that
>people realize the dangers in having an infant in the studio.
>
>We do take more precautions as parents than previous generations did but
>that is
>because we are more aware of the dangers. To be accused of being
>overprotective because one does not let a child breath in harmful dust
>particles or play in a field being sprayed by insecticide is the
>opposite extreme of the accusation of child abuse.
>
>We are aware of these dangers because of advances in medical diagnosis
>and treatment and
>that's because children do suffer from respiratory problems of which the
>causes are
>now better understood. No one wants to be accused of child abuse because
>she was trying to spend time with her child but if one knows that
>something can have serious detrimental effects on a baby it is the
>responsibility of the parent to avoid the danger. Also, there is
>certainly a difference between a 3 month old baby and a 4 year old child
>in terms of development, which the doctor implied in his post.
>
>I do not understand the logic of stating that one's children are fine so
>what one did must be fine. Children survived workhouses but we don't
>endorse sending them there just because the majority survived. I, for
>one, am happy to learn how better to protect my children's health and I
>appreciate the advice of the doctor and that he took the time to give a
>professional opinion. So, thank you, Doctor Amirav.
>
>Patricia
Ron Roy
93 Pegasus Trail
Scarborough
Ontario, Canada
M1G 3N8
Evenings 416-439-2621
Fax 416-438-7849
| |
|
