In article <-tidnYf9TNvUWx7VnZ2dnUVZ_gmdnZ2d@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>, Ericka Kammerer
says...
>
>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.
No, it's more undefined.
>
>>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.
And yours is very likely to have that sore point put on the table, at the
very
worst time. Nothing is solved; only deferred, to the worst time.
And see how I persist in calling it "a sore point"? I dont' say "Grandma
untrustworthy"; I don't say "DIL fearful". I just call it a sore point.
This
is how people get around disagreements. They dont' leave continuing
flahspoints
laying around like landmines. Wills don't say "the three sisters who
dislike
each other can decide how to split up my assets".
Since the DIL has the final say anyway, if this is still a problem, take
it off
the table, I say. Grandma needn't personalize it to a "trust" thing.
>
>>>>>>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.
Recast how? I thought the issue was to get a cogent and viable emergency
plan
defined. It needn't work in this driving issue.
>
>> 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.
Have you been reading?? Actually, mine says an intermediate option is to
call
Mom, and Mom comes. To possibly do the drive to the ER or doctor with
Grandma
in back seat with baby.
>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.
Which isn't a plan, it's an improvisation. (And an opening for Granma to
"can't
I can't I can't I can't I just DRIVE her there?")
>*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.
Like I said before, she wouldn't see it as a power play. She'd likely see
it as
the Best Thing To Do. And I didnt' bring up the b-word :-)
> 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.
How does it do that?! If she's to make the decision on the spot when
Grandma
calls her??
And how is it there's no effort at harmonizing that's to be done not to
get
*DIL's* dander up? Or feeling's hurt or feeling bulldozed over. She
counts
too, if there's to be peace!! You'd have her take this plan that leaves
things
open-ended and possibly dealing with this sore issue between the two women
at a
very bad time to be doing that. *My* dander'ed be up, I tell ya.
All that "enumeration" was all about Grandma trying to put forward
examples
where she should be able to drive and DIL resisting. They're not even the
crux
of the issue - it's the kind of unfortunate conversation one gets into
when
either one either can't muster to say "no" directly, or the other person
isn't
taking "no" as an answer. "What about this...what about that...what about
that
other case.....".
My plan leaves a medically knowledgable Grandma to decide amongst three
options
on medical grounds. Fix at home, urgent but not-911 so call DIL, very
urgent so
call 911. If she's feeling "untrusted", she should take consolation in
that.
>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.
>
There's *sufficient* flexibility. And, if Grandma is respecting DIL's
wishes
concerning driving, what's this "knuckling under" about?? There's the
plan that
answers the question that she claims her friend brought up.
Banty
|
