Recently
Hands Are Tied when a Messed-Up Child Is a Legal Adult
Dear Annie: My 20-year-old nephew has been a troubled youth, despite all the attempts of his family to help him, including counseling and rehab. When he was 18, he became involved with a messed-up 14-year-old girl who used drugs, alcohol and sex to …Read more.
Damaging Favoritism Amid Broken Boundaries
Dear Annie: I have two daughters, ages 5 and 2. My in-laws favor the older girl. They buy her more presents, give her more money and pay way more attention to her than to her sister. They almost seem obsessed with her. As soon as she walks in the …Read more.
Ex Con on the Straight and Narrow Canned
Dear Annie: After eight years at my job, I was let go. I have a felony record. The CEO who knew of my background retired last year. He felt I had proved myself and had no problem with me. When he retired, we got an interim CEO. I told him about my …Read more.
Equal Parts Heart Over Equal Parts Money
Dear Annie: My husband and I work comparable hours, but I earn less than half of what he does and have little discretionary income. I come home to my "second shift," which includes cooking, cleaning and picking up after this man, who …Read more.
more articles
|
Too Much of an Ex Thing
Dear Annie: I resent that my husband's ex-wife is still in the picture. I tolerated her presence when his children were young, but now that they are grown, I don't see why she is still in our lives. She will show up on my husband's birthday and bring a gift. When his relatives visit from out of town, she comes to our house to see them. She drives to the airport to see him off when he takes a business trip. I know the kids are telling her his schedule, but I suspect my husband also gives her information, although he denies it.
Am I wrong to be tired of this? We've been married for 20 years. I have asked my husband to speak to his ex about boundaries, but he refuses. He says it would hurt his children's feelings for their mother not to be welcome. He doesn't think it should bother me after all these years, but I consider her an uninvited guest. What's your take? — Crowded by the Ex
Dear Crowded: After 20 years, the ex-wife thinks she's still part of the family, and apparently, so does everyone else except you. Frankly, we're surprised after all this time that you haven't found a way to be friends with the woman, which would be the best way to handle it.
She is the mother of your stepchildren and will always be part of your life, so cutting her off completely will only create resentment. Instead, ask your husband sweetly to limit how often she intrudes. Dropping off a birthday gift and seeing his relatives at your home are not unreasonable, but the airport run is over the top.
Dear Annie: My wife and I are exhausted after hosting relatives for three weeks and need time to recuperate. Yet, one granddaughter wants to stay the night, her mother encourages it, and my wife won't say no.
We've been married eight years, and I can count on one hand the number of times my wife and I have had a weekend to ourselves. How do I give my wife the backbone to say enough is enough? — Numb
Dear Numb: You may be misinterpreting your wife's attitude. It is entirely possible that she encourages family visits and likes to have her granddaughter stay overnight. She may resent your insistence on saying no. Discuss this with her. Then cross out some days on your calendar so she remembers not to book any guests for that period. It is important to make the effort to schedule time for your relationship, or it can get lost in the tumult of other obligations.
Dear Annie: The letter submitted by Holly Miyagawa regarding kidney failure was very informative. I wish you had emphasized that her condition was detected by the school nurse.
I have been a school nurse for 22 years. I have referred students for evaluation when there was undetected cancer, life threatening but untreated asthma, severe allergies and many more medical issues of which the parents were unaware. I have worked with families to get treatment for students when they didn't know how.
School nurses are invaluable resources to parents and students. Unfortunately, superintendents are firing school nurses all over the U.S. because they are deemed "unnecessary." Yet the current economic conditions make it nearly impossible for some people to get care, and I am often the first medical professional they consult. Thank that school nurse for being there. — Idaho School Nurse
Dear Nurse: Absolutely. Too many schools are forced to cut programs in the name of saving money, but it is the children who lose out. Consider this our thanks to all the school nurses who do so much.
Annie's Snippet for Labor Day (credit Martin Luther King Jr.): All labor that uplifts humanity has dignity and importance and should be undertaken with painstaking excellence.
Annie's Mailbox is written by Kathy Mitchell and Marcy Sugar, longtime editors of the Ann Landers column. Please e-mail your questions to anniesmailbox@comcast.net, or write to: Annie's Mailbox, c/o Creators Syndicate, 5777 W. Century Blvd., Ste. 700, Los Angeles, CA 90045. To find out more about Annie's Mailbox and read features by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate Web page at www.creators.com.
COPYRIGHT 2010 CREATORS.COM
|
 |
Comments
|
32 Comments | Post Comment
|
|
"Crowded" needs to get over it. She's been nursing resentment against her husband's ex for two decades. But when children are involved, even when they're grown, there can never be a clean separation of the sort she's stuck in longing for. She really would be better off in this case following the Annies' advice to make the woman a friend (but not the advice about drawing arbitrary lines like "You can come over to visit the kids but you can't see my husband off at the airport." Continuing to make an issue of contact with the ex will only make her appear petty after all this time.
I've seen marriages destroyed by festering jealousy like hers, and also seen marriages strengthened by a new spouse welcoming the old one into his or her life. She's at a crossroads where she can choose to become a vindictive, jealous shrew, guarding her marriage from someone who will really always need to be a part of her life, or let go of all that and regard the woman as she might a cousin or in-law. I'd highly recommend the latter.
Comment: #1
Posted by: sarah morrow
Sun Sep 5, 2010 11:14 PM
|
|
|
|
Sarah Morrow, good reply to "Crowded" (LW 1). I agree that befriending the ex instead of always feeling irritated with her is the best way to go. And the Annies gave some useless advice by suggesting "Ask your husband sweetly to limit how often she intrudes." Hello! "Crowded" has already spoken to Hubby about these "intrusions" and he "denies" being involved in them at all. He will not listen to a suggestion regarding the ex no matter how "sweetly" it is said. "Crowded", I know you're in a tough spot at times, yet listen to the advice here and do not make an enemy of your husband's kids' mother. My folks divorced yet they have remained friendly with each other for the sake of us kids. We never had to worry that Mother wouldn't show up for a birthday party because "your dad will be there", or any of that nonsense. Accept the situation for what it is. Maybe if YOU join your husband at the airport to bid him good-bye, perhaps Ex will stop doing that of her own accord. If she doesn't, smile and say, "Nice to see you," then give your husband a hug and a kiss in her presence.
Comment: #2
Posted by: Jean
Sun Sep 5, 2010 11:41 PM
|
|
|
|
I agree that LW1 needs to try to make friends with the ex, but I think her (ex) going to the airport to see him off is weird. What does that have to do with their grown children? (She'd have only done it once without me there.) I have an ex I haven't seen, except when I ran into him by accident, in over 30 years. I think the first wife in this case is trying to get him back or she's enjoying making LW1 uncomfortable.
Stories like this make me glad I held out for somebody with no baggage the second time.
Comment: #3
Posted by: Joannakathryn
Mon Sep 6, 2010 12:39 AM
|
|
|
|
Re LW3: Have you noticed that when governments - local, state, or national - are cost cutting, the people they lay off are those the public sees? They'll cut teachers or school nurses, but not the second assistant principal in charge of grief counseling. They'll cut cops but not the bureaucrat in charge of office supplies. There are some government organizations that have one bureaucrat in support for every person doing the actual work of the organization.
Comment: #4
Posted by: Mary Kuhfeld
Mon Sep 6, 2010 5:05 AM
|
|
|
|
Ok, I definitely think it is Crowded's obligation to tolerate the ex for the children's sake (she knew about the kids AND the ex when she married the guy) but COME ON!!! After 20 years, would any of YOU want her around this much? I can tell you I wouldn't under the best of circumstances. Seeing the ex's family is fine, but they should arrange to meet for dinner at another location. And seeing him off at the airport? Give me a break! What benefit do the kids get out of that?? Guess what-- nothing! That is solely because hubby and his ex (wait for it) still want to see each other-- duh!!! And, ah, yes, I doubt if it's the kids who make sure she knows when he's leaving town. If he didn't want to see her, he'd have put a stop to her many "appearances" years ago. Either he still has feelings or doesn't have a spine. What guy wants to be around his ex that much? Not many of them, in fact, none that I know of. Why in the world divorce someone if that's going to be the case. The bad thing is the wife is going to have to keep putting up with this now after all this time. If she gave him an ultimatum, unfortunately, I think I know who he's choose.
Comment: #5
Posted by: myra reid
Mon Sep 6, 2010 5:42 AM
|
|
|
|
It is not the school's responsibility to provide medical care for children. That responsibility rests with the parents, who should not be having children they can't afford to care for.
In situations of genuine need, we already have numerous ways to help people get "free" (paid for by those who work and pay taxes!) medical care. School nurses are an unnecessary expense.
Comment: #6
Posted by: MsRadooo
Mon Sep 6, 2010 7:20 AM
|
|
|
|
Tommy and mary Alice also have an ex thing going: He takes Mary Alice's ex-husband to the doctor and out for breakfast and Mary alice took care of his ex when she was sick. Most recently they visited with the wife of Mary Alice's ex when she had surgery and they check on her daily. They have a wonderful friendship and they are such a Christian example to everyone in the community. If I am ever divorced, I hope I am the same as they are toward my ex, but I am working at not having to be on that end of the spectrum.
Comment: #7
Posted by: Shaggy
Mon Sep 6, 2010 7:32 AM
|
|
|
|
LW1 - "He says it would hurt his children's feelings for their mother not to be welcome. " These children are all over 20 years old now! Set some limits with the ex and let the children's feelings get hurt. I'm all for families getting along and I think it's great when ex's can all be cordial but the ex wife needs to get out of this woman's marriage.
Comment: #8
Posted by: Rick
Mon Sep 6, 2010 7:37 AM
|
|
|
|
MsRadooo,
It may have escaped your attention that the children whose parents send them to public school are, in fact, the children of taxpayers. Yes, even the very poor pay taxes in the form of auto, sales, and payroll taxes. And, in addition, with health care tied to employment many people who were previously "able to afford" to care for their children are suddenly in a very different boat having lost both employment and health care coverage. Healthy children are our healthy future. Complaining about an obviously smart decision by (some) school districts and localities to care for all their children is both meanspirited and counterproductive. If you want to prevent totally unnecessary drains on the public purse you should applaud early intervention that enables kids to stay healthy and stay in school and learn to work hard and be productive members of society.
Until Democratic health care reform has been fully phased in both children and families can be uncovered for basic health care supervision. The only people who are covered are the elderly who get "free" medicare which their children and their children's families are paying for. In addition, of course, plenty of those good "tax paying" middle class and working class families are in school with kids who may be carrying communicable diseases. Those parents would, I'm sure, prefer to have a school nurse to catch those illnessses before they can spread than sit on their wallets and watch their own child, with his private doctor, catch hepatitis, lice, cholera, influenza, small pox, or anything else from children whose health care needs are not being met.
Do a little basic math: a few dollars a day from all of us would cover the cost of health care/school nurses for all our children. I'd be thrilled to pay that--the price of a pizza?--to make sure that my nieces and my friends' children and my children have a safe, clean, healthy learning environment. That's not an unneccessary expense. That's the very definition of a necessary expense in a modern society. If you don't like it, move to Sudan or Somalia or any place else where the good things in life, including safe schools, clean water, and healthy kids are a privilige accorded only to war lords and those who can "afford" it.
aimai
Comment: #9
Posted by: aimai
Mon Sep 6, 2010 7:39 AM
|
|
|
|
Aimai, despite the pathos of your post, it remains the responsibility of PARENTS to care for their children. And in Texas, where I live, many of the children in our schools are anchor babies -- their illegal alien parents do not pay income or property taxes (only sales taxes).
Birth control is readily available and should be used faithfully by those who cannot afford to raise a child. Now, free birth control is something I would be glad to support with my tax dollars.
Comment: #10
Posted by: MsRadooo
Mon Sep 6, 2010 7:48 AM
|
|
|
|
Nonsense, MsRadooo, "many" of the children in our schools are not "anchor babies." This is a completely baseless assertion. I don't care how often you have seen it on Fox News. But even if they were a basic level of education ought to have revealed to you that disease is no respector of citizen status--as long as Texas employers are willing to ignore the laws against employing undocumented workers those workers, and underpay those workers to that they can not afford (or are not permitted to buy) health care coverage, those workers will continue to be a potential vector for easily treated epidemic diseases. All of us suffer when the children of our neighbors get sick and are untreated and untreatable. [This, by the way, as an issue in the recent health care debate as anti-health care agitators specifically fought against allowing undocumented workers from even being allowed to purchase health insurance with their own money. The right wing also fought against allowing women to purchase birth control and abortion coverage with their own money. You might want to consider how difficult an anti-child policy is when combined with a pro-forced-birth policy is such as those I've described.] However, many people in Texas are below the poverty line even while working multiple jobs. At nearly ten percent unemployment of formerly middle and working class citizens there are a lot of people who had children when they could afford them and who now can't cover their medical expenses. Paying for free birth control now, even if you were actually willing to do so, is totally besides the point. But charming of you, nonetheless. I suggest you propose your plan to pay for free birth control and nothing else to anyone and everyone else you know. If you can get anyone to sign on to that you've got a workable political plan. Even if its not a sensible health care or public policy plan. But go for it!
aimai
Comment: #11
Posted by: aimai
Mon Sep 6, 2010 8:27 AM
|
|
|
|
Re: MsRadooo Unless you want to provide extra training for the teachers in how to handle wide variety of medical care (both routine and emergencies) that is inevitably needed when you have 400 to 1000 kids plus teachers and staff together at school, you better keep the school nurses. School nurses are there when the kid falls off the monkey bars and a decision has to be made whether to have the kid just rest with an ice pack, call mom, or call the paramedics. They are able to recognise whether the diabetic kid needs food (and what food) or emergency medical care, as well as give shots to the ones needing insulin midday. They are the ones who help the spina bifada child use the catheter to go to the bathroom (you would have teachers resigning over that one). They are there to decide which child you just remove the bee sting from and which one you use the epi-pen for. The majority of vision and hearing problems in children are found through their screenings, even among middle class kids with insurance who regularly see their pediatrician. They make sure the kid who was sent back to school as noncontagious takes their medicine at noon (and it was stored in a refrigerator like the bottle says). She was even there for the pregnant teacher who passed out at school. And please don't say just train someone for all that, we already have them, they are called school nurses. Idaho School Nurse, you and your fellow school nurses are appreciated by many of the teachers, parents, and kids.
Comment: #12
Posted by: Elizabeth
Mon Sep 6, 2010 8:55 AM
|
|
|
|
Bravo aimai - a voice for the voiceless full of common sense and facts. I applaud you and so agree with you! BTW I am also a Texan, not all of us are so full of hate and stuffed with Fox nonsense as MsRadoo is.
Comment: #13
Posted by: CC Rider
Mon Sep 6, 2010 9:05 AM
|
|
|
|
Re: myra reid
Myra, I'll concede that the ex making a the trip to see the LW's husband at the airport is unusual, but the LW is still better off not making a big deal of it. (Would she object if an in-law did the things she mentions in her missive?) I still think the LW would be better off letting of of all that competitive energy and looking at her husband's ex as if she was a boring sister in law. If she starts laying down conditions and rules and trying to control things, it will almost certainly come back to bite her.
The main thing the LW needs to realize is that when you marry a man who has kids, who's on speaking terms with the mother of those kids, as the Annies said, there WILL be contact, and it won't end when the kids grow up. I'm not putting her down for feeling a little bugged now and then, but saying, the best strategy is to make the ex her friend, not regard her as an intruder and enemy. As the saying goes, "Choose the battles you can win" and let the other things go. If she tries to start a snitty little war over this, one way or another, she'll lose.
To MsRadooo , who wrote that it's not the school's job to provide medical care to children --- schools don't need to provide over-the-top care, but basic nursing care is reasonable and necessary. We're not talking about providing health care to the kids outside of school hours, but being there in case of an emergency when they're in school. Remember, the kids have no choice but to be in school. You say the parents are responsible, but parents can't hang around a classroom all day with first aid kits waiting for their kids to be injured; the school is their caretaker during the day. The school in such a case has a responsibility to have someone there to render first aid in case they're injured in an accident. A nurse's quick intervention saved my friend's life in high school; if the nurse had not been there to do what was needed till an ambulance could get there, she would have died. I assume MsRadooo doesn't have any kids. If she does, I'll be she'd be the first to scream bloody murder if they were injured at school and became permanently disabled (or died) because a nurse wasn't around to help.
Comment: #14
Posted by: sarah morrow
Mon Sep 6, 2010 9:13 AM
|
|
|
|
LW1-I applaud her husband for keeping such an amiable relationship with his ex. I rarely hear of these situations. Maybe seeing him off at the airport is a bit much and maybe not; either way, I would just be thankful he's not a vindictive person.
LW3-We are on the same boat. I recently graduated with a Masters of Library and Information Science degree with the intent of becoming a school librarian. I have already taken the Praxis exams needed to at least get started in K through 12. Unfortunately, many school administrators believe school librarians are also unnecessary and they are among the first to get cut. According to the American Association of School Librarians, a division of the American Library Association, there is evidence to support that the schools with high levels of academic achievement among their students have effective library programs run by qualified librarians.
I agree that school nurses are necessary, too. It is unreasonable to expect teachers to be able to diagnose many of the diseases LW3 described. I live in state with a very high level of poverty. There are those who live just above the poverty line to where they do not qualify for assistance but still cannot afford health insurance. This means that the parents cannot even afford basic preventative care for their children. I am willing to bet that many school nurses in my state are also the first to diagnose illnesses or other health conditions here, too. Good luck to you, LW3.
Comment: #15
Posted by: LibraryKat
Mon Sep 6, 2010 9:41 AM
|
|
|
|
MsRadooo--I'm also from Texas, and I completely disagree with you. You're probably too young to remember, but in the 50s/60s and possibly longer, schools gave free vaccinations. We always dreaded seeing the nurse there, because it was "shot" day. A school nurse can help with minor problems, which takes the load off emergency rooms and free clinics. Any regular medication has to be handed out by the nurse now, because of the stupid "zero tolerance" policies.
In a report I read recently, there was concern that the birth rate of the U.S. is dropping below the level needed to sustain the population. In some countries, women are given bonuses for having more children. I've had people tell me I should have had more than one, though they'd be the first to say things like you did--"If you can't afford them, don't have them." So which is it? Should people have children so that there will be enough workers to support the aging generations? Or should only the wealthy, who can afford things like private school, private clinics, etc., have children?
And yes, I'm very pro-birth control. I think nurses should be able to hand out birth control when they know a student is sexually active. When I knew my 16-year-old SIL was heading off to meet a boyfriend, I made sure she was prepared.
Comment: #16
Posted by: Joannakathryn
Mon Sep 6, 2010 9:51 AM
|
|
|
|
MsRadooo where in LW2 letter did it state that the school along with the school nurse is treating medical issues, all she stated is by being on he front lines school nurses are able to detect medical promblems and inform the students medically untrained parent so the parent can take them to medical professionals.
Comment: #17
Posted by: terre
Mon Sep 6, 2010 10:07 AM
|
|
|
|
Ok, i'm probably going to be on the unpopular side of the school nurse issue, but hear me out. While I agree that it's nice to have a school nurse, I don't think it's something that is necessary - sort of like having a swim team would be nice, but not all school districts can afford a pool. I went to a small, rural school that had all grades, k-12, in one building. We did not have a school nurse, and I think the school still does not. There were many poor families in town, but also many programs outside the schools to help those families get medical care for their children. As for having a trained professional on the premises, here's my thought on that: the American Red Cross offers a course that include CPR and first aid for infants, children, and adults. This is a one day course and should be around $50 in most places. I have no idea if many teachers/administrators are CPR/First Aid trained or certified, but it certainly seems like something that would be reasonable for them to do even if they had to pay out of pocket. I know I took the class simply because I have a child of my own, and I'm glad I did.
Comment: #18
Posted by: Saraf
Mon Sep 6, 2010 10:37 AM
|
|
|
|
Amai, Elizabeth, CC Reader, and Joannacathryn, (I hope I spelled everybody's name right),
Thank you!
MsRadoo,
When your child falls of a swing and hits her head during recess, or develops a severe allergic reaction (which can happen quite unexpectedly and unpredictably), or develops a severe nose bleed at school, will you also think that school nurses are an unnecessary expense? If your child needs medication administered, and you need to leave your job every 3-4 hours to do that because the teachers are neither legally allowed to give meds to children nor can they take the time away from teaching 25 other kids to provide medical care for yours, will you then think that school nurses are unnecessary?
And with respect to taxes, please educate yourself. If you own property, you pay property taxes regardless of your legal status. If you work, even with a fake social security number, you pay income taxes - they get deducted from your paycheck. Of course, if you work with a fake social security number, you won't be getting any social security when you are older - they will go to the person whose number you are using, if he/she is still alive.
Finally, unless you are 100% Native American, somebody in your family was an "anchor baby" or an immigrant at one point or another. Why are you so eager to deny the same opportunities to immigrants now that your family got to use in the past.
Comment: #19
Posted by: Ariana
Mon Sep 6, 2010 11:29 AM
|
|
|
|
Saraf,
Not to beat a dead horse or anything but your personal anecdote about a small rural school is simply beside the point. There are relatively few of the kind of tiny rural schools you are talking about. Most American children, from the largest cities to the suburbs and exurbs, are grouped together in fairly large schools--whether K-8, as is popular around here or in large but shorter runs as is common elsewhere (k-4 or 5, 5/6 and then 7/8). Even the small schools movement in New York City, where my cousin is a principal of a highschool, actually has "small highscools" of 150 kids sharing the same building space with other such small highschools. Having a school nurse on duty for 300 or more kids is a cost saving to the school, not a loss.
Second of all, you may not be aware that in more enlightened states and commonwealths many school teachers, admin staff and etc... already take basic life saving skills on a regular basis. I know that the pre-schools here pay for it for their teaching assistants. Why should they "pay for it out of pocket?" If the teachers and admin people have to pay for something out of pocket that means that the parents and taxpayers who have hired them to perform other jobs (teaching, admin, whatever) are essentially free loading off them, just as the taxpayers are freeloading off the teachers when they assume that the teaching staff will pay out of pocket for school supplies.
Thirdly, as a country we have decided that public education is a necessity and a good--and we have been mainstreaming a whole lot of kids with a whole lot of health problems. That's something we decided to do because it makes good sense for a modern, industrial, society of immigrants. If we want the parents to work and pay taxes, we need to make sure their kids can safely attend school during working hours. If we want children with mobility issues, diabetes, CP, seizure disorders, and etc... to attend school so they can learn to be independent and care for themselves rather than being warehoused we need to provide them with a safe place to learn. Having a trained medical professional is an *incredibly* cheap way of doing that. For insurance purposes if for nothing else.
I think the idea that this is some kind of luxury is absurd and a total red herring. Teachers are paid, and not a whole lot, for teaching twenty and thirty kids at a time. They don't have the time, or the training, as someone said up above to help a child with a catheter go to the bathroom. But that child needs and deserves a public education. They don't have the time, or the training, or carry the insurance, to give a child with diabetes or life threatening allergies his shots. But that child needs and deserves a public education. Having one person on staff to care for literally hundreds of people--both students and teachers--is an incredibly cheap way of making sure that one small health incident doesn't derail an entire classes's day of education.
Arguing against having school nurses is the very definition of penny wise and pound foolish.
aimai
Comment: #20
Posted by: aimai
Mon Sep 6, 2010 11:30 AM
|
|
|
|
Saraf,
Not to beat a dead horse or anything but your personal anecdote about a small rural school is simply beside the point. There are relatively few of the kind of tiny rural schools you are talking about. Most American children, from the largest cities to the suburbs and exurbs, are grouped together in fairly large schools--whether K-8, as is popular around here or in large but shorter runs as is common elsewhere (k-4 or 5, 5/6 and then 7/8). Even the small schools movement in New York City, where my cousin is a principal of a highschool, actually has "small highscools" of 150 kids sharing the same building space with other such small highschools. Having a school nurse on duty for 300 or more kids is a cost saving to the school, not a loss.
Second of all, you may not be aware that in more enlightened states and commonwealths many school teachers, admin staff and etc... already take basic life saving skills on a regular basis. I know that the pre-schools here pay for it for their teaching assistants. Why should they "pay for it out of pocket?" If the teachers and admin people have to pay for something out of pocket that means that the parents and taxpayers who have hired them to perform other jobs (teaching, admin, whatever) are essentially free loading off them, just as the taxpayers are freeloading off the teachers when they assume that the teaching staff will pay out of pocket for school supplies.
Thirdly, as a country we have decided that public education is a necessity and a good--and we have been mainstreaming a whole lot of kids with a whole lot of health problems. That's something we decided to do because it makes good sense for a modern, industrial, society of immigrants. If we want the parents to work and pay taxes, we need to make sure their kids can safely attend school during working hours. If we want children with mobility issues, diabetes, CP, seizure disorders, and etc... to attend school so they can learn to be independent and care for themselves rather than being warehoused we need to provide them with a safe place to learn. Having a trained medical professional is an *incredibly* cheap way of doing that. For insurance purposes if for nothing else.
I think the idea that this is some kind of luxury is absurd and a total red herring. Teachers are paid, and not a whole lot, for teaching twenty and thirty kids at a time. They don't have the time, or the training, as someone said up above to help a child with a catheter go to the bathroom. But that child needs and deserves a public education. They don't have the time, or the training, or carry the insurance, to give a child with diabetes or life threatening allergies his shots. But that child needs and deserves a public education. Having one person on staff to care for literally hundreds of people--both students and teachers--is an incredibly cheap way of making sure that one small health incident doesn't derail an entire classes's day of education.
Arguing against having school nurses is the very definition of penny wise and pound foolish.
aimai
Comment: #21
Posted by: aimai
Mon Sep 6, 2010 11:31 AM
|
|
|
|
Hi Saraf. I had a friend when I was in high school, who almost died from a reaction to a medication she was taking. She told me about her reaction, and I rushed her to the nurse's office. The nurse treated her with emergency first aid and called an ambulance, who arrived in time. Thank heaven she did. My friend would have died if the nurse had not been there.
As others have pointed out, injuries in schools are common; many of them could be lethal or disfiguring for life if not for the presence of a nurse who can administer aid until an ambulance arrives. It's impossible for parents to monitor their children when they're in school; they're entrusting them to the school, which becomes their legal guardian.
I hate to say it, but if a single child dies as a result of a school district its nurse, I hope the parents will sue the district for every penny it's worth, and make such a stink that other districts become afraid of similar actions. I also hope the parents will personally sue the school's administrators, and any government figures who allowed the firings, for all THEY are worth. Only the threat of legal action can prevent schools from following the foolish and dangerous practice of getting rid of school nurses.
Comment: #22
Posted by: sarah morrow
Mon Sep 6, 2010 1:57 PM
|
|
|
|
I am a teacher and I say, "thank goodness for school nurses". I can be much more productive because of them. By screening for glasses, having the time to really talk to a child who is feigning illness, and by taking care of children that are really ill, I can focus on my job. Our school nurse even helped me when I had a stroke.
Comment: #23
Posted by: jennifer
Mon Sep 6, 2010 6:09 PM
|
|
|
|
Concerning school nurses, I can't imagine not having one. They are considered a front line responder when it comes to recognizing new epidemics and alerting the CDC. No one in the school can give a child so much as a tylenol except the school nurse. Look at how huge the mainstreamed disability population is, and the medical care they need daily or in an emergency (peanut butter allergies or asthma anyone?). And many parents will ignore the possibility of vision problems or learning disabilities or other things that hinder school performance until the school nurse suggests it. And let's not forget bullying. When a kid severely hurts another kid, who's going to be the first person to perform first aid? Plus, there are teachers and students giving birth at inconvenient times, broken bones and heat exhaustion during PE, and any other number of medical issues.
Comment: #24
Posted by: Krystyne
Mon Sep 6, 2010 7:30 PM
|
|
|
|
I'm not going to necessarily defend Ms Radoo, mostly because my mother was a school nurse for 33 years. But maybe we could make a case for school nurses WITHOUT also arguing for support of the repulsive, unwanted, unnecessary, hyper-expensive federal takeover of the health insurance system. It's going to bankrupt us and completely ruin the American healthcare system which is currently the envy of the world. (There are as many MRI machines in Cleveland as in all of Canada - coincidence?) Before you get too attached to it, you might want to see what the next Congress does about repealing or de-funding it. Or...why must we assume that someone who posted inaccurate or questionable information "must be getting it from FOX News." (Considering how many lies the rest of the media has been caught in (Dan Rather's Memo-gate, anyone?) this particular meme has always amused me.) And before some of you accuse me (again!) of being a shill for the right, let it be known that I'm pretty tired of otherwise intelligent people being unable to resist the urge to drag their politics into the discussion. Knock it off already.
Comment: #25
Posted by: Matt
Mon Sep 6, 2010 11:41 PM
|
|
|
|
Re: Saraf I hope if you have a disabled or special needs child you are able to come up to school to take care of their needs in that case. I have seen kids in public schools who needed daily noon breathing treatments or insulin shots, who had to be cathetered several times a day, and they are entitled to an education as much as any physically normal child. I hope when your child throws up at school you can be there within 5 or 10 minutes since without a nurse someone else at the school cannot do their job until you get there as sick children must be isolated from the others and it is not allowed to leave that child alone either. I hope when your child needs medicine at noon you can leave work to give it since medical privacy laws don't allow teachers to as they are neither the child's guardian nor a qualified medical provider according to the law, even if they have first aid training.
Comment: #26
Posted by: Elizabeth
Tue Sep 7, 2010 12:53 AM
|
|
|
|
Annie. Ex wife. Till you walk is shoes you can't tell somone how to walk in them
Comment: #27
Posted by: K jean
Tue Sep 7, 2010 4:35 AM
|
|
|
|
One of my son's elementary schools only had a school nurse two days a week. Too bad we couldn't schedule when he'd get sick. I DO have great health insurance, but, amazingly, even my awesome insurance doesn't pay for someone to follow my son around his school. He's had stomach aches where he could go back to class and a severe illness scare where he was sent by ambulance to the ER - fortunately, the school he was attending at THAT time had a school nurse who realized his headache was not just a headache. His school now has 1600 students. I'm sure on any given day there are students there who will get sick, or who are sicker than their parents realized, or who take daily meds - note I said "daily" not, "twice a week" or "only while at home".
I'd rather pay for a school nurse my kids never needed than to have a child suffer due to lack of care.
Comment: #28
Posted by: Kerry
Tue Sep 7, 2010 6:57 AM
|
|
|
|
Re: Matt
OK, I won't have that argument if you won't. But first, do remember not to start off your comment with an incorrect statement. We are not having a Federal takeover of the health care industry. We are having a first approximation of fully regulating a largely unregulated insurance industry which takes your insurance money and doles out health care funding to you on an irregular basis. Second, your statistic about Canada is totally absurd: Canadian's don't envy us our health care system at all. While we have good doctors and good facilities our for profit model and our broken insurance system means that everyday care that Canadians get free we have to pay for. I know plenty of US citizens who moved to Canada who would never move back for fear of losing their health coverage--and I know of no parents of children with disabilities who would trade our health insurance plans for Canadian health care. None. An MRI that you can't afford to access is worth zero to you. But please, do explain to me how you don't get all your information from Fox. If you are getting your misinformation on health care, insurance, and the recent health care law from anyone else I'd be interested to hear it. That's a whole lot of misinformation.
aimai
Comment: #29
Posted by: aimai
Tue Sep 7, 2010 8:21 AM
|
|
|
|
@aimai
One of my cousins married a guy from Alberta. From what she, her husband and his parents have said, the Canadian health care system is not without its problems. I don't see her too often so I don't remember exactly what the problems are but they are significant enough.
That being said, I am not happy with our current health insurance situation here in the States, either. My husband is an instructor for a local community college. You would think that being a state employee would mean excellent insurance, right? Well, it is if you are the employee, but not if you are the employee's spouse. The cost is over $400.00 per month for spouses. There is no office co-pay and a yearly deductible of $500 (or $1,000 per family). I am out of work at the moment because I am unable to find a job in my field. My husband's salary is actually a very good one considering the low cost of living in this area but the cost of the insurance really hurts us financially.
I told my husband that compared to other employee plans we have had in the past, this current one is the most expensive for the least amount of coverage. To make matters worse, if we want preventative care benefits, we have to sign up for a "medical adviser," which is out-sourced to a third-party organization located out of state. Why would I want to discuss my medical history with someone whose credentials I cannot verify?
Comment: #30
Posted by: LibraryKat
Tue Sep 7, 2010 9:16 AM
|
|
|
|
People in favor of the nurse almost always have kids in school. Ever notice how people with kids always want someone else to pay for what they require?
Comment: #31
Posted by: TJ
Thu Sep 9, 2010 9:40 AM
|
|
|
|
I am really surprised at all the comments concerning the ex wife. The ex needed to move on a long time ago. She stays in the picture because she can and knows it bugs the current wife. I am in that same situation. My husband's ex constantly tries to mess with us. I am polite when I have to see her but do not want her around on a regular basis. With "friends" like her, who needs enemies? If I wanted to be friends with my ex husband, I'd still be married to him. My step-daughter was grown when her parents divorced and she's getting married soon. She want's to put us and her mom in a 2 room suite because "it would bug" me and that's the only reason. It wouldn't really bug me but it's the thought that she wants to go out of her way to bug me. My brother in law always invites the ex to all the family events even though he knows that if she comes, my husband won't. If my ex's family did that, I would send a gift and wish them well, I certainly wouldn't attend. This ex comes with bells on. I think that LW1's husband should grow a pair and be more respectful to his wife of 20 years. I can understand being cordial when the kids are young but once they've grown, cut the ties. It will make it much easier for the current wife to be nice when she only has to deal with her at the kids birthday's and other important events. The airport send-off is way over the top. The husband should stop that immediately!
Comment: #32
Posted by: shorty50
Wed Sep 15, 2010 4:52 AM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
