Banty wrote:
> 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.
It's very clearly defined. It's just that one of the
possibilities is that Mom makes the decision at the time when
information is available. It all
>
>>> 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.
I'm not asking it to. What I am suggesting is in no way
related to the driving issue, except to the extent that what I
am proposing has as its first goal responding appropriately to
the situation rather than defending against any glimmer of possibility
that the caregiver would ever drive.
>>> 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??
1) Parent has the information to make the decision: the injury/
symptoms, the relative locations of all parties, time of day/
day of week (and thus what's open/who's available to treat),
parent's availability to drop everything and leave at the
moment, child's emotional situation, and so on and so forth.
2) Much more flexible: can choose among parent comes to child,
parent chooses someone else to get child, parent chooses to
call 911, parent chooses to meet caregiver & child as specified
location (trans****tation via caregiver, taxi, other designated
driver), and so on and so forth--any of which could be reasonable
options under the cir***stances, and any of which could be
unavailable as options at any particular time. 911 and caregiver
are always available by definition, but in the gray area in
between pretty much any option could be unavailable.
3) Common: This is precisely what most places I know do. If
it's an emergency or a little boo-boo they know exactly what
to do. If it's something in between, they call and ask the
parent what is preferred.
4) Resolves an encountered problem: All of the above are
generic issues that would apply in any situation. In this
specific situation, there had already developed a sensitivity
around a particular issue, and both parties were frustrated
over it. Crafting a solution specifically designed to
foreclose an option *and* make it clear that an option was
being foreclosed is less than tactful. All other things
being equal (and in this case, parental prerogative is
completely and totally preserved either way), being more
tactful is better than being less tactful. Also, not only
were sensitivities already heightened, but
> 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
There is nothing left open-ended about who has the authority
to make the decision. Nothing.
> and possibly dealing with this sore issue between the two women at a
> very bad time to be doing that.
Again, if there was any real possibility of that happening,
the child should not be in that caregiver's care. Period.
> 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.....".
It's also a conversation one gets into when one is trying
to make decisions a priori without the information that would
ideally inform the decision. The whole issue could have been
resolved by saying, "Call me, tell me what's up and I'll decide,"
which forestalls all the "what ifs" rather than "Call me and wait
for me to arrive" which practically begs for "what ifs" and also
screams "because I know I'm not going to trust you to do anything
except wait for me to take over."
It doesn't *matter* why the unfortunate conversation
arose. It's a tactful way to shut it down while preserving
parental authority, and isn't *any* skin whatsoever off of
the parent's nose. What's there to be upset about?
> 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.
No, that's *my* plan. Yours is fix at home, urgent but
not-911 so call DIL and wait for her to arrive to fix, urgent
so call 911 is your plan. The difference between the two is
small but significant.
>> 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??
Have you never seen that there is a difference between
capitulating and capitulating but having your nose rubbed in it?
*NOWHERE* in the entire situation had the caregiver gone against
the parent's wishes, and there is no hint that the caregiver
would have done so at any time or under any cir***stances. That
was never on the table. The only thing ever at issue was how
the involved parties *felt* about the issue, and whether sufficient
clarity could be achieved on legitimate items of concern. Allowing
the caregiver to save a little face without giving up any parental
authority is *precisely* at the heart of handling this sort of
issue. It comes up all the time and in many different ways,
particularly among family members or friends who are interdependent.
Learning to maintain boundaries without bludgeoning people over
the heads with it is key to making those sorts of situations work
in the long term. There was an op****tunity to do that in the
conversation over this issue that was missed.
Best wishes,
Ericka
|
