In article <mqCdnbLhI_oLBR7VnZ2dnUVZ_jSdnZ2d@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>, Ericka Kammerer
says...
>
>Banty wrote:
>> In article <d-mdnYC7T_Vauh_VnZ2dnUVZ_gidnZ2d@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>, Ericka
Kammerer
>> says...
>>> Banty wrote:
>>>> In article <3OadnWikjvmlcxzVnZ2dnUVZ_gGdnZ2d@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>, Ericka
Kammerer
>>>> says...
>>>>Firstly, Grandma is NOT, we HOPE, going to be holding comforting
stroking while
>>>> drive her alone to the hospital.
>>> Right. My point was that calling an ambulance instead
>>> of having Grandma drive does not necessarily solve the issue
>>> of holding/comforting/stroking. Getting another person in the
>>> car does that (assuming an ambulance is not needed), whether
>>> that person is Mom, a neighbor, whatever. And the spare adult
>>> can be the driver or the comforter. So many variables, so why
>>> make iron-clad decisions in advance?
>>
>>This isn't making "iron-clad decisions" - this is making *contingency
plans*.
>
> So, ah, what's the big deal about leaving room for more
>options in the contingency plan, especially if it makes it
>easier to sell?
Why on earth would any more complication be desirable? An emergency plan
should
be as simple as can be and still be comprehensive. If there were to be
one more
option that would satisfy you, what would it be, and what 'hole' would
that
plug, and exactly how?
What, exactly, has to be "sold"? That puzzles me. Why would a loving
Grandma
be anything other than happy to know exactly what kind of contingency plan
to
follow? Why would she have to be "sold" on it?
>
>>>>So that option is out from the get go. It's infinitely more likely
already,
>>>>therefore, that Grandma will be in the back of the rig with her, and
if not her,
>>>> it will be *somebody*. Somebody quite experienced with just this
sort of
>>>> situation!
>>> Again, the only options on the table are not Grandma drives
>>> vs. call an ambulance. I don't see why the options should be
>>> artificially limited when the option to make the decision at the
>>> time with knowledge of the conditions involved and the resources
>>> available is actually at hand.
>>
>> Ah, yes, there's:
>>
>>Grandma the knowledgable nurse treats at home. Feasible: yes - done. No
- next
>> in the decision tree.
>>Grandma decides between: Calling Mom and Mom coming home (to take to
doctor or
>> ER) or calling 911. Based on her knowledge.
>> That's the next branch in the decision tree. With a sub-branch for not
being
>> able to get ahold of Mom.
>>
>>That's how things are done, Ericka. It's that way in EMT training, in
military
>>training, and I'm very surprised your prescool doesn't have something
like that.
>
>
> You know, I'm really tired of being patronized here,
>and I'm tired of being propped up as your strawman.
>
I'm not doing a strawman argument. Else, perhaps you can answer the
questions I
asked above simply, staightforwardly, in a single sentence or two.
Because how
I understood your idea was that Mom would be called and they'd wing it
from
there, with a lot of sentences about many factors, capped with the need
for some
kind of understanding that Grandma would respect what Mom decides,
whatever that
means (not argue with her? Or just not take action other than what she
comes up
with, even if they argue? I'm not even sure what that means.). That's
hardly
any better an emergency plan than anyone *without* an emergency plan would
do -
quick call somebody and improvise. And that's not a good way to go.
Banty
|
