Banty wrote:
> 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?
How simple is a three level decision decision tree?
Mine actually doesn't have any more decision points than yours,
and is no more complicated. It's simply more flexible.
> 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?
Because while both decision trees allow mom to control
the outcomes in *exactly* the same way, one rubs Grandma's nose
in the lack of trust and the other doesn't. A little tact
never hurt anyone, especially when it comes at no cost.
>>>>> 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.
It is, because you are deliberately recasting my arguments
so that you can knock them down instead of addressing the actual
issues on the table.
> 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.
First of all, the emergency situation is covered exactly
the same way in both plans (call 911), as is the obvious to deal
with at home scenario (Grandma deals). The *ONLY* difference is
what to do in situations requiring urgent care that could be
handled in a number of different ways depending on the situation.
Your plan forestalls all other options and says call an ambulance.
Mine simply says let mom decide what looks best under the cir***stances,
which could include any number of safe and reasonable options, at
mom's discretion. *I* wasn't the one who brought up the "what
if Grandma argues about it" issue. I simply said that A) I doubted
she would, because it takes a real b*tch to pull a power play with
an injured child in her arms and B) if I were the mom and had any
real idea that someone would do that, I would consider them an
unfit sitter at any time. Nevertheless, I did say that if one
was unsure, one could make it explicit to Grandma that the
expectation was that Grandma would abide by mom's decisions in
the moment.
So, my suggestion is no more complicated, it is
more flexible, it is pretty much the same plan as at our preschool
(and many others, so it's hardly as outre as you wish to make it
out), it continues to vest all the decision making in mom's hands,
it gets mom out of the difficult conversational bind she found
herself in where she was having a hard time enumerating
which situations belonged in the call-an-ambulance bucket and which
belonged in the grandma-deals bucket (nevermind that she'll never
be able to enumerate them all), and all without nearly as
much risk of getting grandma's dander up and thus greater
cooperation and harmony. But I'm sure it would be sooooo much
better to make all the decisions a priori so that there's no
flexibility to react to the situation at hand in order to
get grandma to knuckle under in a more obvious way that leaves
her no room to save face.
Best wishes,
Ericka
|
