brighid

Fatherphil,

Your last article again does nothing more then address quality of day care. I would also say this study about SIDS should speak more to the poor maternity/paternity leave times this country offers rather then day care. Whether a child is in his/her home, or in a day care facility their vulnerability to SIDS is the same with any untrained parent/grandparent/or non-parent caregiver.

This still says nothing about day care per say being detrimental, but that poor quality day care can have a negative impact on many things. I would again say that such a conclusion is pretty darn obvious.

Brighid

fatherphil

i understand that a study showing that the danger of sids is significantly higher for children in day care than kids that are cared for at home would still not be enough to convince you of the fact that kids are generally better off being cared for at home. that's why i usually don't bother with studies. folks see in them what they want and discount the rest. if dying from sids, being sick more often, food poisoning and being seperated from your mom for 10 hours a day, being dragged out of the house at 7 am and 5 pm rain or shine, hanging out with strangers from birth to the age of 5, is not considered a detriment then what possibly could i say to convince you otherwise.

i'm not saying that a human can't survive such a joyful existence, i'm saying that it is not the best thing we can do for our kids inspite of the carrot that the net added income may produce.

brighid

Fatherphil,

I would like to actually have a link to the study/article so I can make judgments for myself. From what you posted there is no clear indication that quality day care facilities are any more dangerous then home, therefore I find it very difficult to be convinced by your arguments. Thus far your supporting evidence has been weak.

You could convince me by providing me links so I can review the methodology of the studies and check references to determine if the study was comprehensive and/or sound.

Any editorial writer can say this is what the studied said or suggested, but I like to make those determinations for myself when I can.

Again, every study you have posted discussed quality of care and does not, imo provide any actual link that ipso facto day care is to blame for SIDS, food poisoning (surely children can experience this if they go out to eat anywhere outside of home, but are more likely to pick it up at a family picnic), etc. Even the information you posted does not say day care is responsible for increase in SIDS or infections, but it is EXPECTED .... BUT NOT PROVEN. That is the point. Poor day care facilities are going to provide poor day care. An infant can die from SIDS in its home, at a grandparents house, a day care facility or even in the hospital.

I don't think 7 am is even early for most children. My son has (until very recently) been up by the crack of dawn since he was very little. I would have loved to been able to sleep past 6 am.

I also question some of the information you posted because I find it ridiculous (like the average child suffering from a cold for 14 days and therefore would spend half the winter ill) and therefore am not convinced of what you say.

Provide something solid and not simply editorial versions!

Brighid

fatherphil

http://www.cnn.com/2000/HEALTH/children/08/07/sids/

brighid

Thank you for the link. Again, it isn't a problem with day care per say, but about education. Quality day care facilities, with well-trained staff, aren't likely to have this high of incidence. The article does not discuss the methodology of the study or who/what/when etc.

Unfortunately, IMO anyway, all this stresses is the importance of extended maternity/paternity leave so mothers, or fathers can afford to stay home with their young children (such as the example pillar gave with regard to Europe) and that society places too small a value on parenting, child care and family. Parents are more often then not forced to go back to work because in order to live they must have two incomes. Improve the quality of life for working families, along with the social structures in place to care for children and families, as well as the health benefits for pregnant women and their children and you will see parallels to European society.

These articles say little about actual day care, but the state of poor day care and education of parents and care givers.

There is no proof of the ipso facto (and hence traditional American 50's SAHM model) that day care IS in fact detrimental to a child, although poor day care can be. Quality day care, as well as quality parenting will either lessen or remove the factors you have sited.

Brighid

Edited to add: It also appears that 60% of SIDS deaths occur in unlicensed home care facilities. The stat is also misleading. 391 deaths occured in day care settings (out of 1,916) and therefore the rest either occurred at home, or in a non-day care setting.

fatherphil

would you need a study to prove that more quality time a parent spends with his child improves the bond between that child and parent?

Daleth

I'm not sure how to answer that. In "raw time" we're talking about the difference between spending 24 hours a day and 16 hours a day with the child. That's a hell of a lot of time with the child. What percentage of a SAH Mum's time with her child is "quality time"? Being as she's with the child constantly, is it reasonable to conclude that some of that time she's going to be trying to make it through the day and taking her tasks for granted to some extent? How much "quality time" does a child with 2 working parents get as compared to "quality time" spent with a SAH parent?

After we determine that, and if there is a difference in the level of bonding, how much difference? What affect does this have on the child throughout his or her life? Is the positive effect of the child's greater bond with the parent greater than the positive effect of the child learning to socialize with other adults and other children? Is the positive effect of the bond greater than the positive effects of whatever the mother's job brings to the family (which may include health care benefits)?

yguy

Swell. With all that extra money they can afford to send the kid to a psychiatrist.

Daleth

For what? Please show me the study that says people who had SAH mums are less likely to need psychiatric care than people who had working mums. Show me that there is a causal link. Don't just jump into the conversation to assert something based on no facts. I asked how much weaker the bond was and how or whether the weaker bond affected the child throughout his or her life. You jumped past your own conclusion directly to a snide remark based on it.

Queen of Swords

Originally posted by yguy
My culinary skills are nothing to rave about,

Then let's stick to discussing the topic, babies in day care.

Your intellectual dishonesty is as well hidden as a rotting corpse in a solarium at high noon on a summer day.

Pot, kettle, etc. But since we are in an upper forum, let's try to keep this on topic : babies in day care.

The parent shouldn't put up with the child's stupidity? What's the alternative, other than throwing it out of the house?

Correcting the child's stupidity.