2nd hand smoke, child abuse?

[Andrew]

Originally posted by dc
How young are you? Pat, our son, has no desire to smoke or drink either. We couldn't be more proud of this.

Not to young but not to old.

[Lost His Marbles Name]

I think it's getting the kids use to the smoke to early in life. When they get older it's might be easyer to start smoking. My parents didn't smoke. When I tried to smoking it was nastyand I hated it. I look at my friends and made a mental note, each friends parents who smoked there kids smoked. When the parents didn't smoke there kids didn't smoke. I can be wrong and not always true in every case.
Hear is a story for you all.
My freind and wife did smoke and I would complain because I would get headaches and feel like crap. When they finally stoped smoking they appologized for all the times he has smoked in front of me. They can't stand it know they think there house smells better, they feel better and save money. This is all due to there 2 month year old boy. I though it was a nice gesture for the kid and there body.

[dcoufal]

Before 1/1/05, smoking was allowed outside of the hospital where I work.

It was routine to see patients (in for emph/lung cancer/etc.) standing outside the doors smoking a cigarette while ON OXYGEN!

A little part of me was always waiting for the "big boom"....

Effective 1/1/05 - no smoking is allowed on any property that is owned by the hospital. (And, we're talking *many* buildings/parking lots in *many* cities around Texas.)

Patients/Employees may only smoke IN their car. Anyone caught doing otherwise is quickly "corrected" by security. If the person(s) refuse to abide by the rules, the local police dept. is called to remove the person from the property. Employees will also only receive a single warning before termination.

[bswedenburg]

what exactly are 'we' smoking? not all leaf is the same...

look at all the trouble the Halfling's Leaf got Gandalf into!

[Sierra]

Originally posted by dcoufal
Before 1/1/05, smoking was allowed outside of the hospital where I work.

It was routine to see patients (in for emph/lung cancer/etc.) standing outside the doors smoking a cigarette while ON OXYGEN!

A little part of me was always waiting for the "big boom"....

Effective 1/1/05 - no smoking is allowed on any property that is owned by the hospital. (And, we're talking *many* buildings/parking lots in *many* cities around Texas.)

Patients/Employees may only smoke IN their car. Anyone caught doing otherwise is quickly "corrected" by security. If the person(s) refuse to abide by the rules, the local police dept. is called to remove the person from the property. Employees will also only receive a single warning before termination.

As a NON-SMOKER I went through a Miscarriage while in the late portion of my 4th month of my pregnancy - My husband Was not allowed in the ER with me - During the hour he spent waiting he went outside in a Designated smoking area - and had a cigarette - obviously in alot of pain himself for his loss as well - a member of the STAFF came up to him and cursed him for smoking - making comments about how he was caring for several smokers who were dieing of lung cancer.

My Husband did not even bother answering the man.

You have no right telling an adult weather their smoking is right or wrong - unhealthy or not sure - its unhealthy - But given the situation I just described - My husband was losing his unborn child and someone was so into the whole "anti-smoking" thing that they chose to harrass and degrade my husband during a tramatic time in his life.

That being said - No smoking Rules ANYWHERE are always respected by the people I know who smoke. and should be.

If you are a non smoker in a designated smoking area - leave.

DISCLAIMER: this isnt a post in favor of smoking - this is a post in favor of respecting eachother.

[dcoufal]

Originally posted by Sierra
You have no right telling an adult weather their smoking is right or wrong - unhealthy or not sure - its unhealthy -

Ummm.... is that being directed at me?

I didn't set the rules. The hospital board did.

The "butt-huts" were removed on 12/31/04 - which had previously been the "approved" smoking areas. I always tried to stay at least 50 ft away from them and always up wind.....

There had been *many* complaints from patient's about their RT's/Nurses/etc. "reeking" of smoke. Though, I don't see how that'll change by telling the employees they can only smoke in their cars.... Seems like it would be even stronger now.

The hospital has been very supportive in offering quit-smoking classes, greatly discounted drugs, etc. to help their employees quit.


On a more personal note:
I have never smoked and quite frankly don't see the point in wasting the money to do it - and, the smell usually triggers a migraine for me.

My wife smoked some from 15 or 16 till she turned 18. She said there wasn't a point in doing it once it was legal for her to do it.

[Sierra]

Originally posted by dcoufal
Ummm.... is that being directed at me?

I didn't set the rules. The hospital board did.

The "butt-huts" were removed on 12/31/04 - which had previously been the "approved" smoking areas. I always tried to stay at least 50 ft away from them and always up wind.....

There had been *many* complaints from patient's about their RT's/Nurses/etc. "reeking" of smoke. Though, I don't see how that'll change by telling the employees they can only smoke in their cars.... Seems like it would be even stronger now.

The hospital has been very supportive in offering quit-smoking classes, greatly discounted drugs, etc. to help their employees quit.


On a more personal note:
I have never smoked and quite frankly don't see the point in wasting the money to do it - and, the smell usually triggers a migraine for me.

My wife smoked some from 15 or 16 till she turned 18. She said there wasn't a point in doing it once it was legal for her to do it.

nope not directed at you - I agree that smoking should be banned around hospitals - But where it is allowed I dont think people should be attacked - just an opion - nothing personally towards you.

Also - Smoke doesnt give you a migraine it just gives you a bad headache - Smoke constricts blood vessels which makes it hard for your body to carry oxygen to your brain etc... - That is not a migraine. Trust me I've had a few migraines.

[dcoufal]

Originally posted by Sierra
Also - Smoke doesnt give you a migraine it just gives you a bad headache - Smoke constricts blood vessels which makes it hard for your body to carry oxygen to your brain etc... - That is not a migraine. Trust me I've had a few migraines.

Smoke, most alcohol (luckily, not Vodka), bright light directed into my eyes, and sudden changes from dark to light are all my migraine triggers. (Seeing a movie in a theater is a guaranteed migraine for me.... Thank you, Pay-Per-View!)

Yes, a thick cloud of smoke (the old "butt huts", smoking areas in restaurants, etc.) trigger a true migraine for me. Walking past a smoker on the street won't do it. But, a sustained conversation with that person for several minutes usually will if I'm down wind.

Bad headaches don't include loss of hearing and vision on my right side, difficulty comprehending, and difficulty with forming basic speech -- that's a typical migraine for me.

I've had them since I was 18 (I'm now 31). Imitrex (oral/nasal/IM) no longer works for me. Frova works if I take it within 5-10 minutes of the trigger. Midrin works (multiple doses over 24 hours) if taken within 30-60 minutes of the trigger.

I also take a couple of things daily as prophylactics to try and reduce the frequency of the migraines.... They were a near daily occurence for me about 8 years ago.

With that said: Everyone that has migraines has a different set of triggers. The "fun" is finding out what they are.

And, yes, I agree with you. If smoking is allowed in the area, there's no need to attack someone about it.

[DrBDC]

The research involved with second hand smoke is flawed at best. There is no factual evidence of health problems associated with it. Is it unhealthy. Heck yea it is. No question. Just no REAL proof. You can prove anything you want by manipulating the data. It is one of those things that the study of it cannont be performed.

This smoking issue has gotten so out of hand that other rights are being infringed upon. I.e. banning in business'. What right does a local government have telling a small bus. owner what to do. If the community doesn't like the fact that smoking goes on in Joes bar and grill, they won't go and he'll go out of bus. That is called capitalism. That is what our county is. This is NOT a democracy. Next they'll try to tell you that you can't have red carpet in your home. Yes, your home. How do you like that. Red has been proven to cause anger and agressiveness. That could be dangerous to society.

On the other hand, the whole McDonalds thing CAN be proven to be harmful. In fact, a smoker will probably live longer than a obese person. Don't quote me on numbers and that is just a life observation with no research behind it. I've had 3 people close to me die of lung cancer and way more from weight related issues.

Now in a car, I'm not so sure how much smoke is actually being directly induced to a child. There is the window cracked (or should be). It does stink though. I guess first would be to PROVE 2nd hand smoke issues. Then do a study on exposure in cars w and w/o windows cracked, venting, and even venting by different car designs.

What about parents who both work. The children are missing an extremely important part of thier development which HAS been proven. Same with broken families. Is that child abuse? Is that society abuse. Could you sue the single mom that has a child go to prison because your taxes pay for it? Our society has gotten out of hand. Sueing Tobacco companys. That needs to be stopped people and to sit and let that $^%# is rediculous. In the 60's no one thought it was ok. Give me a break. My Great grandfather died of a stroke and the hospital told my great grandmother it was probably due to him smoking and that was 1964. My mother was told to stop smoking when she was pregnant with me and I was born in 1965.

I hope that all smoking stops and it just dissappears from society but everyone needs to quit looking for how they're being done wrong.

It never ends. We just have to do our best as we see it.

[Sierra]

Originally posted by dcoufal
Smoke, most alcohol (luckily, not Vodka), bright light directed into my eyes, and sudden changes from dark to light are all my migraine triggers. (Seeing a movie in a theater is a guaranteed migraine for me.... Thank you, Pay-Per-View!)

With that said: Everyone that has migraines has a different set of triggers. The "fun" is finding out what they are.

well, I've had a headache from being in a smoking room - But a severe migraine where I feel the need to poke my eyes out with my thumbs is typically triggered by a more severe circumstance - That I suppose I am lucky for - I dont take ANY drugs for ANYTHING by choice - I cope with what I have - Even if that means rolling on the floor howling in pain and Poking myself in the eye with my thumbs for 3 4 5 hours.

and to the last post by DrBDC - Amen

[dcoufal]

Originally posted by Sierra
well, I've had a headache from being in a smoking room - But a severe migraine where I feel the need to poke my eyes out with my thumbs is typically triggered by a more severe circumstance - That I suppose I am lucky for - I dont take ANY drugs for ANYTHING by choice - I cope with what I have - Even if that means rolling on the floor howling in pain and Poking myself in the eye with my thumbs for 3 4 5 hours.

I rarely have pain with the migraines... If I have pain, it's usually just a bad headache. My migraines only cause the loss of vision/hearing, difficulty with speech, etc. I tried the "drug free" method for several years..... People calling 911 because they think you're having a stroke and you can't explain otherwise isn't fun.
I take as few drugs as possible: daily diuretic for high BP (had to be threatened by the Dr. to do it) and daily ibuprofen (low dose) for migraine prophylaxis. And, at $12/pill for the Frova.... I try to steer clear of any triggers.
My mom still does the "drug free" method, though.

[Sierra]

Originally posted by dcoufal
I rarely have pain with the migraines... If I have pain, it's usually just a bad headache. My migraines only cause the loss of vision/hearing, difficulty with speech, etc. I tried the "drug free" method for several years..... People calling 911 because they think you're having a stroke and you can't explain otherwise isn't fun.
I take as few drugs as possible: daily diuretic for high BP (had to be threatened by the Dr. to do it) and daily ibuprofen (low dose) for migraine prophylaxis. And, at $12/pill for the Frova.... I try to steer clear of any triggers.
My mom still does the "drug free" method, though.

well I should talk to dr about other ways to manage as it seems you've found the right way for you.

I literally feel like poking my eyes out - ussually I end up in my husbands lap with him holding my hands so I dont. That just aint working for me. Last time I went to the DR. for this - My husband took me during an episode - after an hour in the waiting room on the floor groaning, I Left - and swore to never go back to that Dr.

Only reason I havent went to dr since is because I dont expeince them more them once every 6 weeks, and I figure thats not often enough to be a worry.

[DrBDC]

Sorry if I ranted. Just had some red carpet put in. No really, it's actually a maroon-ish.
Our city just did one of those bans and this one guy who owns a bar called The French Quarter will prob. be put out of bus. It's been around for years and years. I'll guess 40. Another bar also was at the "hearing" (a joke for we'll do what we want) and he had the SBA with him. They stated his bus. would go from over a million in value to worthless and they'll pull his loans. They tabled the issue. Then a couple weeks ago after about 6 months with not a word published anywhere, brought it up an passed it. It just ticks me off all the damn busybodies in my bus. and it only gets worse.
More and more government, take more, and what we can't get the first time around we'll take it from your heirs.

[Flanders]

I thought this was relevant to the abuse discussion. Is it abuse to feed a baby only wheat grass, coconut water and almond milk?


Baby's starvation death under investigation

The siblings of a 5-month-old girl who police say may have starved to death also appear to be malnourished, a medical doctor trained in child abuse and neglect told a juvenile dependency court judge Friday.

As detectives investigate whether Lamoy and Joseph Andressohn were responsible for their infant's death, the couple's four other children remain in the custody of the state Department of Children and Families.

The Andressohns, who followed a strict diet of uncooked organic foods devoid of animal byproducts for religious reasons, could be charged with the death of their daughter, Woyah, if autopsy reports confirm that the infant died of malnutrition, police say.

When she died early Thursday, the Homestead girl weighed only six pounds, about a third of what a normal child should weigh at her age.

The Andressohns appeared solemn during a court hearing Friday, while a judge decided where their other children would be placed.

"I'm grieving," Lamoy Andressohn told Miami-Dade County Dependency Court Judge Ivan Fernandez when he asked her if she was all right. "I'm going through a lot right now."

During the hearing, Fernandez said he is considering whether to place the children in the custody of an aunt while police investigate Woyah's death. The children's parents will be allowed supervised weekly visits during the course of the investigation.

Child welfare workers have already conducted a visit to the aunt's home and are waiting for the results of a background check on the woman's family.

Meanwhile, Fernandez ordered the agency to regulate the children's diets so that they consume enough protein and fats to meet their nutritional needs.

The Andressohns are members of the Hebrew Israelites, a group of African-Americans who consider themselves the true descendants of the biblical tribe of Judah. Members are referred to as saints, and many take the last name "Ben Israel," meaning son of Israel.

Some of their customs include wearing only natural fabrics and maintaining a vegan diet void of all animal byproducts. They forbid smoking, drinking, drugs and even caffeine.

Dr. Walter Lambert, medical director of Miami-Dade's Child Protection Team, said he plans to devise a diet for the Andressohn children that would not violate their parents' religious beliefs. Nuts and soy products, for example, could provide the children with adequate amounts of fat and protein, he said.

Though neighbors described the Andressohns as a loving and caring family, someone was apparently concerned enough about the couple's dietary practices to call the state's child abuse hotline.

In the past two years, DCF received several abuse allegations that the children were not adequately fed, according to a source familiar with the case. It is not clear how child abuse investigators responded, but child advocates question whether DCF mishandled the case.

DCF received one abuse complaint to its hotline just days before Woyah's death on Thursday. Homicide detectives spent hours interviewing Woyah's parents Thursday but have not charged them with any crimes pending the results of an autopsy.

Woyah is the fourth child under the watch of the DCF Miami District to die in the past three months.

If the Andressohns are charged with Woyah's death, prosecutors would have to prove that the child died because of her parents' neglect and not from any other health condition, said Bruce Winick, a law professor with the University of Miami.

However, the parents' dietary practices and religious beliefs would not be a sufficient defense for inadequately nourishing their child, he said.

"They can't impose their religious or dietary beliefs if doing so places the child in physical jeopardy," he said.

In California, three members of a secretive group known as "The Family" pleaded guilty last year to felony child endangerment charges after a 19-month-old boy died of starvation. Prosecutors said the toddler's death was the result of his biological parent's strict vegetarian lifestyle.

In Massachusetts, a jury convicted a cult leader last year of first-degree murder for starving his infant son to death to comply with a religious vision.

[DrBDC]

I don't feel this would be as they did not intend to do harm. Seems strange that the child didn't get enough protein though. They used to think vegetarian diets were devoid of essential amino acids but have revised that thinking. They must not have had any variety going and no beans. In a case like that I think the local law should have stepped in but just like always, they want to spend our money. Couldn't that one case be brought up, immediately instead of some half a million dollar process, and the judge say, look, your daughter is going to get treatment, you need to learn (and pay for it yourself through books, classes, whatever btw libraries are free) dietary skills as per drs instructions. Your other children will be checked and monitored with your sickly daughter. If no improvements to said daughter are made, then they will be taken. It takes little court interference and the judge wouldn't even need to come out of his chambers. Prob. even a letter could do it.
Taking the other kids sheeze! They did it out of ignorance not intent. I'll even bet thier releigon has classes available on it.
Now that cult leader needs to just go away. That's death penalty level crime. As well as the "family members". Also anyone who watches a crime and doesn't help or call for help or be a witness. But that's another rant.

[Flanders]

They fed the child only wheat grass, coconut water and almond milk. I agree that it is totally possible to raise a healthy child and give the kid plenty of protein on an all-vegan diet, but you can't feed a one-month old kid beans.

[DrBDC]

You would think if they were into natural healthy things they would give thier child 1 animal product, namely breast milk.

[Sierra]

Originally posted by DrBDC
You would think if they were into natural healthy things they would give thier child 1 animal product, namely breast milk.

good point.

and ignorance is not an excuse when it comes to starving a child.

[DrBDC]

Originally posted by Flanders

The siblings of a 5-month-old girl who police say may have starved to death also appear to be malnourished, a medical doctor trained in child abuse and neglect told a juvenile dependency court judge Friday.

We've actually jumped on them too fast here. I was skimming the article again and noticed a key point. MAY have starved to death and APPEAR. There are some key problems with this. People tend to always think they know better and if this child is a very thin child some may think they're very malnourished, others may say they look a little thin but healthy. That damn media gets people going and they're good at it. I was about to hop in the car and go beat them myself.
When anything, especially involving children, happens bad society will jump on the "what makes them diff. than me because this could never happen to me because I'm better!" Then next thing you know they'll take all the members of that church and remove the children from thier homes. In an earlier post I mentioned breast milk but maybe the baby was getting it and mom was too malnourished herself to produce??
This doctor too is trained in child abuse and neglect. Hmmm, medical school gives the equivilent of a weekend seminar on nutrition. It's amazing how many people think they're getting "golden" advise from a md on nutrition. That is NOT thier training. Go to a nutritionalist, a chiropractor, heck, maybe a podiatrist for all I know but I do know the curiculum of medical and chiropractic colleges and medical school has basicly none.
This is along way from a smoking debate.

[DarkStar76]

Smoking is unhealthy, as is second-hand smoke. But is it child abuse? I don't think so. For a couple of reasons...

1) Damage from cigarette smoke is reversable - when a person is away from the smoke, the damage reverses and a person returns to a completely healthy state. Breathing smoke does not create life-long problems, emotional or physical.

2) Your odds of being injured in a car accident are higher than your odds of getting cancer from second-hand smoke if you are not a smoker. Therefore, if smoking in the car is child abuse, so is putting your children in the car in the first place.

That's not to say it isn't a BAD IDEA. But the anti-smoking movement is so eager to criminalize people for behavior that is less dangerous than activities many of us participate in each and every day, that their efforts becoming abusive and intrusive. In the end, we must rely on personal responsibility and simply understand that some people will always make unhealthy choices.

Intentionally harming a child is abuse. Forcing your child to smoke cigarettes could be abuse. Subjecting a child to the same living conditions that you subject yourself to every day is hardly comparable, especially when some smokers live to be 100 years old with no related problems.

I'll say it again, though. Its a BAD IDEA.
But we shouldn't turn smokers into criminals because we think we know what is best for THEIR children.

[BrianD]

There are logical reasons to put someone in a car. There aren't too many logical ones for smoking with them in said car.

[Wilafur]

Originally posted by DarkStar76
Smoking is unhealthy, as is second-hand smoke. But is it child abuse? I don't think so. For a couple of reasons...

1) Damage from cigarette smoke is reversable - when a person is away from the smoke, the damage reverses and a person returns to a completely healthy state. Breathing smoke does not create life-long problems, emotional or physical.

hmm....well the following are also reversible:

1. bruises
2. broken bones
3. psychological trauma

therefore, since the above is reversible, its no longer catergorized as child abuse?

[DarkStar76]

quote:
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
hmm....well the following are also reversible:
1. bruises
2. broken bones
3. psychological trauma
therefore, since the above is reversible, its no longer catergorized as child abuse?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Actually, if you study child-abuse cases, you will find that the above 3 have been determined as NOT REVERSIBLE. The theory states that #1 and #2 lead to #3, and #3 damages a person for life.

When you park your car in the lot at a child day-care, you are dumping tons of pollutants into the air that is being pulled inside through the ventillation system. Are you guilty of child abuse?

The city sprays toxins in the air to kill mosquitos. These chemicals have been found to potentially create health problems. Is the city guilty of child abuse?

Children die every year in swimming pools. If you sign your child up for swimming lessons, is it child abuse?

Mcdonalds and burgerking meals are tremendously unhealthy and may cause many health problems. Are parents who feed their children french fries guilty of child abuse?

Circumcision is extremely painful and can lead to plenty of other health problems. Are proponents of this practice engaging in child abuse?

I could go on forever. Just because something is NOT HEALTHY does not make it a crime. *Intent* is the key to identifying a crime. Although you have done a good job of identifying yet one more unhealthy aspect of life on earth.

My argument, is that it's wrong to make it a CRIME. Not that its healthy.

There is a BIG difference between "could potentially" and "did irreparable damage." If we lock up the "could potentiallys" we'd all be in jail for hurling a 3000lb chunk of steel down the highway every day, whether we think we can justify it or not.

[BrianD]

Let's all go ride bikes.