On Jul 2, 3:50=EF=BF=BDpm, Banty <Banty_mem...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> In article
<c5872471-f7b0-4e5a-9d76-6588145fb...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>,
> Chris says...
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >On Jul 2, 1:59=3DEF=3DBF=3DBDpm, Banty <Banty_mem...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
wrote:
> >> In article
<0093003c-c560-43cc-a62b-d4a6f5fbe...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >com>,
> >> Chris says...
>
> >> >On Jul 2, 7:52=3D3DEF=3D3DBF=3D3DBDam, Ericka Kammerer
<e...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote=3D
> >:
> >> >> Chris wrote:
> >> >> > That's fine by me, but definitely not my preferred method. I'm
mo=
re
> >> >> > inclined to work with my child to get to the bottom of an issue
a=
nd
> >> >> > therefore ask pertinent questions for either case - medical or
> >> >> > behavioral. A 6-year-old is fully capable of answering some
point=
ed
> >> >> > questions honestly if not lead into a certain direction -- if
she
> >> >> > doesn't feel she can help it or change the problem, then medical
> >> >> > evaluation should be pursued. I will avoid submitting my child
fo=
r
> >> >> > some painful, humiliating, invasive tests if at all possible.
So,=
no,=3D
>
> >> >> > you don't have to automatically run to the doctor in every
> >> >> > cir***stance. I can't imagine running my daughter into the
office=
for=3D
>
> >> >> > unnecessary tests when I know full well what she is doing is
> >> >> > behavioral.
>
> >> >> =3D3DEF=3D3DBF=3D3DBD =3D3DEF=3D3DBF=3D3DBD =3D3DEF=3D3DBF=3D3DBD
=
=3D3DEF=3D3DBF=3D3DBD I disag=3D
> >ree in this case. =3D3DEF=3D3DBF=3D3DBD=3D3D
> >> >Just getting a urine sample
> >> >> is not painful, invasive or humiliating, and UTIs can be fairly
> >> >> silent (especially to a young child not all that in tune with
> >> >> her body yet) and can be indicative of problems that you need
> >> >> to get on top of ASAP. =3D3DEF=3D3DBF=3D3DBDIt's quick and easy to
=
rule out a=3D
> >n UTI,
> >> >> at which point you have the leisure to pursue the behavioral
> >> >> issues without running the risk of causing kidney damage.
> >> >> =3D3DEF=3D3DBF=3D3DBD =3D3DEF=3D3DBF=3D3DBD =3D3DEF=3D3DBF=3D3DBD
=
=3D3DEF=3D3DBF=3D3DBD I'm pro=3D
> >bably the last person on ea=3D3D
> >> >rth to run to the
> >> >> doctor for every little thing, but unless I had some pretty
> >> >> strong clues that the issue was behavioral (e.g., starting
> >> >> to have accidents again right after the arrival of a new
> >> >> sibling, or something like that), I think a trip to rule out
> >> >> a UTI is entirely appropriate. =3D3DEF=3D3DBF=3D3DBDIf there *is*
a=
UTI, then=3D
>
> >> >> further testing might be warranted and you'll need to make
> >> >> a judicious decision then, but you'll at least know that
> >> >> there definitely is a physical issue at that point.
>
> >> >> Best wishes,
> >> >> Ericka
>
> >> >Actually, Ericka, you are in agreement with me. I mentioned earlier
> >> >that a simple urine sample is easy enough to obtain and that further
> >> >testing beyond that I would put off unless I was unsure about it
bein=
g
> >> >behavioral and it was causing worry. The OP hasn't chimed in for a
> >> >couple of days, and I'm assuming the doc visit they initially had
> >> >would have included that first initial urine check-hopefully.
>
> >> I don't understand this. =3DEF=3DBF=3DBDWhy is there this bright line
=
drawn at a=3D
> > urine test?
> >> If the physician has suspicions, but the urine test is negative, if
he=
ord=3D
> >ers a
> >> barium test, you'd say "no" then turn to assuming it's behavioral?
>
> >> I think what makes sense it to investigate if there is a physical
issu=
e fi=3D
> >rst
> >> (whatever it may be, UTI or something else), with the goal of either
p=
ursu=3D
> >ing it
> >> or ruling it out. =3DEF=3DBF=3DBDPeriod. =3DEF=3DBF=3DBDWhy second
gue=
ss about which t=3D
> >ests, etc.?
>
> >> Banty- Hide quoted text -
>
> >> - Show quoted text -
>
> >Seriously, Banty, I'm in no mood to go this far with you today.
>
> Oh good grief, my second post in this thread and you're reacting like
thi=
s.
> Take a chill pill.
>
>
>
>
>
> >If a
> >doctor felt a barium was necessary, who would decline further testing
> >after an expert explanation of why it is being recommended by the
> >physician? A doctor will want to avoid taking it further if a parent
> >suspects it is behavioral and a urinalysis turns up nothing and they
> >also don't have an etiology. They are likewise more likely, however,
> >to run with further tests when a parent insists that they don't
> >believe it is psychological or behavorial as well. =EF=BF=BDIf you want
=
to
> >demand the whole nine yards, then do so, but not everyone feels they
> >have to do that automatically, or even that it should be done right
> >off the bat. I don't really feel it necessary to break out in detailed
> >descriptions/responses to every possible scenario. The OP feels it is
> >behavioral, and it may well be. We don't even know if they did a
> >urinalysis, and as you can see, I believe this physician indicated
> >watching for a period of time was acceptable, which tells me the
> >physician doesn't automatically feel further testing is warranted at
> >"this" time -- maybe it will be in a couple of months though - who
> >knows. I'm obviously interpreting the OP differently than you are.
>
> More all-or-nothing thinking. =EF=BF=BDA urine test or ever test under
th=
e sun.
>
> All I'm trying to get across is to investigate the medical stuff first.
=
=EF=BF=BDIt's
> pretty much common sense. =EF=BF=BDThere's danger both in ignoring
medica=
l problems
> (including ones that don't reveal themselves in *one* test), and in
press=
ing a
> child to 'fix' behavioral problems that may not be at the root of the
pro=
blem
> after all.
>
> Banty- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
LOL. @[EMAIL PROTECTED]
|
