School Dispute at Monsignor Paul Dwyer Catholic High School Takes a Life

Yesterday a student at a high school here in my city was stabbed to death. It's made news all across the province, at the very least. Possibly nationally. As a general rule, it's major news when a young person is murdered in Canada, and it very rarely happens at school. I think there's only ever been one school shooting resulting in a death in Canadian history. (Don't quote me on that, though.)

I drive past this school on a fairly regular basis since it's on my way to my son's preschool. It's not in a bad area of town, in fact, it's about a block away from "The Glens" where a lot of doctors and professionals live. The school doesn't have a bad reputation, and I know several good kids who go there, or did in the past.

As I drove past, I first noticed the number of police vehicles in the parking lot. I assume this was a) for investigation of the incident and b) for security purposes. I saw two girls hugging and crying in the parking lot. The next thing I noticed was a Rogers television van. Then across the street, CityTV, CTV and CBC. On the southwest corner across from the school, there was an abnormal amount of strange men standing around on the corner. Reporters and cameramen is my best assumption, waiting for the perfect kid to interview.

I have a bit of a love/hate relationship with the media when it comes to stories like this. On one hand, I recognize that this IS a news story. They are doing their job, and it's not like I'm above reading or watching the stories, so how can I judge? On the other hand, I see friends and family grieving - a mother who has lost her only child, who probably doesn't want to see it splashed all over the papers day after day, like grinding glass into an open wound. I can only imagine what that mother (and father) are going through, and it tears me up just to imagine it. To lose one of my children at any age would be as if a knife had gone into my own heart, but to lose them as a teenager, in a stupid school dispute? I don't know how you go on after that.

I don't believe in the death penalty: taking a life to prove that taking a life is wrong is redundant and barbaric to me. I just don't know how I would feel if it were my own child. Parents lose children every day, though: to illness, accidents, suicide, and sometimes they never know how. Sometimes they just disappear. It's hard sometimes not to be gripped with fear thinking about the possibilities. Yet I've always been the one preaching about not living in fear. I let my daughter walk home from school by herself. I let my my kids climb up the slide at the playground. You can't keep your kids in a bubble.

I wish I knew the answer to all of my random thoughts and questions this morning.

You can read more about the story here.

Health Canada recalls wooden Evenflo baby gates - Parentcentral.ca

Another recall...

Health Canada recalls wooden Evenflo baby gates - Parentcentral.ca

Ontario Daycares Get Bailout

A few days ago The Toronto Star was saying that the daycare system in Ontario (subsidized spots in accredited centres, it should be added) was near collapse. Today, it appears that the Liberal Party is riding to the rescue.

It is expected that in Thursday's budget, the government will announce that they will cover a shortfall caused by the federal Conservatives. In 2006, Paul Martin's federal Liberals gave Ontario $252 million as part of a national childcare plan worth $5 billion. A few short months later, Canadians lost their sanity and elected the Conservatives, who promptly cancelled the program in favour of handing parents $100 per month for every child under the age of 6. Because of course, daycare for a 1 year old only costs $100 per month, right? Not that I object to the extra income each month, but it is a rather ridiculous assumption that you are helping parents with such a pathetic amount.

So now, the original $252 million is gone, and the Ontario Liberals are faced with either coming up with $63.5 million per year to make up the shortfall, or else canceling subsidies or reducing the number of spots available. With a predicted $24.7 billion deficit, it's a risky move either way. You either add to the already record-deficit, or make life much more difficult for thousands of parents.

I think they've made the right choice. Despite the number of people crying about the deficit (which is not to say that this isn't a major concern) and saying that they shouldn't have to subsidize others' daycare, it is a necessary expense. Without affordable daycare many parents simply would not be able to work, and I really don't know that our economy can take another hit right now. Losing a second (or first) income can be devastating to a family's finances. The Liberals have made the right choice.

Ear Infections SUCK!

My son, Andrew, has been plagued with ear infections the past two winters. Last year after five in a row, we got a referral to a local ear, nose and throat doctor. After two visits, he declared that Andrew had "survived" the winter and didn't need any further treatment.

So far this winter he has had another five - three since Christmas. I took him back to the ENT, who said that the pressure in his ears was normal, he was okay. Well of COURSE the pressure in his ears was normal - he'd just had his eardrum rupture! Anyway, when he started to say that Andrew would be fine again for this year, I stopped him. I don't want my son to just keep "surviving" the winter. His quick answer: okay then, we'll do tubes. Go up front and book the surgery. No discussion, nothing. Just surgery.

I booked the procedure and almost immediately started to freak out. Partially because it's my 3.5 year old, and we're talking general anesthetic, and no matter how "routine" it is, it still is a horrible thing to think that my baby is going to be "put under". I hate to think of him scared, or upset. As his mommy, it's my job to keep him safe.

The other reason I freaked out was that I didn't know if it was really necessary. If there's no fluid build-up in his ears right now, will it do any good? Am I putting him through unnecessary surgery? With no chance to really discuss it with the doctor I had no idea.

I have to take him to our family doctor tomorrow to fill out pre-op forms. I decided that I would talk to her more in-depth then, and if I changed my mind I could cancel the surgery as long as it was more than a week beforehand.

Then my ear started to hurt. I don't know how many of you have had ear infections at an age that you can remember them, but this is AWFUL. the urgent care doctor told me it was a bad one, but I already knew that.  I was in so much pain I was praying for the eardrum to rupture, just to relieve the pain. Even after two days of antibiotics I was still curled up in a ball on the couch last night, praying that the way too many painkillers I had taken would FINALLY kick in so that I could sleep, and even then I was up every couple of hours looking for something else to take. And anyone who knows me knows that I don't like painkillers. I still have half the bottle of heavy duty stuff I was given after my c-section last year. I can't even close my jaw all the way, which certainly makes eating difficult.

I honestly feel like someone is trying to tell me that my son needs this surgery. As much as it may kill me as his mommy to have to hand him over to a surgeon, even if only for half an hour, I need to do it, and I need to be strong for him.

The purpose of ear tubes is to ventilate the area behind the eardrum, which keeps the pressure equalized. Bacteria and viruses can enter the middle ear from the eustachian tube, which connects the ear to the nose. This causes pus to fill the middle ear, putting pressure on the ear drum. Thus, the pain from the ear infection. Plus, because the eardrum has a harder time vibrating (which is how we hear), there is often a temporary loss of hearing in the ear.

The tubes (usually done in both ears, unless for some reason the patient only seems to have one ear affected) are intended to allow the fluid to drain, rather than build up behind the eardrum. They generally stay in place for anywhere from 6 to 18 months, although I've heard from a lot of parents that they often fall out and end up needing to be replaced.

You can see a short video on ear tube surgery here. It's does show the insertion of the tube, but it's not all that graphic. I've got a pretty queasy stomach for this stuff, but i found it interesting.

My Kids Would LOVE this Daycare!

http://www.parentcentral.ca/parent/education/childcare/daycare/article/779349--porter-more-men-needed-to-fill-the-gap-in-daycare

Porter: More men needed to fill the gap in daycare

There are the same little wooden cubbyholes, small jackets and frayed scarves hanging from hooks that you find in any child-care centre.

The same book corner and tiny plastic couch. The same miniature chairs around miniature round tables.

What's most striking about Beatty Buddies Daycare is the men.

Big strapping men.

Men like Geoffrey Brown, stuffed into a toddler chair and quietly overseeing 3-year-old Adelaide glue silver snowflakes onto paper. And Shane Scott, all 200 pounds rising off the floor where he has been playing castle with a group of toddlers, to address a fight between Liam and Nate.

"Keep your body to yourself, please," Scott tells them. Shaved head, tattooed wrist, hulky figure – Scott would fit in as a bouncer on Richmond St. But he prefers separating – and teaching – children.

Four decades later, child care remains the feminist movement's number-one failure. Despite the constant talk about the vital first three years of development, Canada still has no national daycare program and what scraps of programming exist remain hot pink zones.

Go to a graduation ceremony at George Brown College and you'll see 92 per cent of the early childhood education diplomas are handed to women. The four-year degrees are even worse: 98 per cent of the graduates are female.

Overwhelmingly, women raise our children.

Beatty Buddies is an exception. One-third of the staff here are men.

I visited twice to see them in action. It convinced me every childcare should have male workers – both for the kids and for their mothers. Male childcare workers, I think, are the answer to much unfinished feminist business.

Lisa Winters, the centre's managing director, lays out the obvious differences between male childcare givers and female ones. They play more physically. They lift kids up to see things on the wall. They bring out a football in the yard, rather than heading to the monkey bars.

"They think of things women generally wouldn't put in the program," she says, pointing to the hockey net and goalie gear in the room's drama corner.

The patriarch of the clan, Donovan Wilton, has worked here for 15 years. He is a professional musician. During his circle time, he plays Rolling Stones and Beatles songs on his guitar for the kids to bounce and race around to.

How important all this is becomes painfully clear when they all sit back down.

They are only four years old. But already, they separate themselves – girls in dresses, sparkly shoes and a pink tutu to one side, boys in sloppy shirts and sneakers to the other.

"You often see boys sitting in a circle, rolling their eyes around and looking off at the sky," Winters says. "Look at how engaged they are here. Boys are like puppies. They have to be playing and moving."

The Toronto District School Board is looking at ways to boost boys' achievement in grade schools. Why not start earlier – at daycare?

After the initial shock of seeing men in a child-care centre, the most obvious thing is how little they differ from their female coworkers. They set out crafts, serve meals, read stories, cuddle away tears, change diapers.

That, I think, is even more powerful.

These men are breaking the steadfast stereotypes that bubble up on Statistics Canada reports: no matter how women flood law and medical schools, we are the nurturers and homemakers.

Years down the road, will Liam's wife thank his parents for sending him to a place where he learned – by osmosis – that men clean up and push strollers? I'm betting yes.

We spend so much time talking about the glass ceiling. What about the glass floor?

"It makes you wonder if it was a male-dominated profession, would we see more investment in it?" says Christine Nunez, managing director of the Atkinson Foundation, whose son Gabriel went to Beatty Buddies.

That's a good question too.

Other pink professional ghettos, like nursing and stewardessing (remember that word?), became purple after they unionized, says Judy Rebick, former president of the National Action Committee on the Status of Women. Unions brought higher wages, which lured men.

Child-care workers make on average $30,000 a year, $26,000 less than the average elementary school teacher in Ontario. That's a clear deterrent to anyone, men or women.

There's something to be said about critical mass, too. The more men who become caregivers, the more likely the men in Parliament are likely to take the field seriously.

Winters didn't set out to recruit male caregivers. She simply hired the best, she says. They drew one another, finding comfort in some shared hockey talk amid all the girlie chatter.

But maybe there should be a concerted effort to get more men into the field. The European Union has set a target of 20 per cent male child-care workers by 2015. Why don't we?

The results might just surprise us all.

"In the early days of feminism, we wanted to be like men. That was a mistake," says Rebick, now a professor of social justice and democracy at Ryerson University. "What's needed in the world is what women are stereotypically good at: more loving, more compassionate, more nurturing...

"If men spend more time with children, they'd be more like that," she says.

Seriously, this is the best idea for improving daycare that I've heard of in a long time. I mean, after you get over the initial shock of some big, burly stranger looking after your child, it makes sense. I watch my husband play with our kids and I love watching how physical they are, the way that they play together. He's good with other kids, too.

I think, as a society, we need to get over the idea that men who want to look after young children as a career are somehow creepy. It could be the best thing to happen to daycare in a long time!

March Break

Here we go again: another school holiday. Teachers everywhere celebrate! Parents who can afford to actually GO somewhere (like my friends who go on a cruise every year!) are looking forward to time off from work. The rest of us parents shudder to think how we will entertain our kids during one of the most BLAH months of the year. Playdates? Excursions (preferably free ones)? Way too much television and computer time? Praying that Grandma and Grandpa want some quality time?

There are pros, of course. Sleeping in sounds awfully good right about now. Although Dad will still have to get up for work, it's quite likely that after a day or two my kids will crash and actually start sleeping past 7am. It's good for me, because I don't have to get up so early, and good for their sleep-starved bodies to get some rest. I also had the giddy thought earlier tonight as I was loading the dishwasher that I don't need to make a single school lunch for the next 9 days! And I even remembered to unpack the lunchbags so that there's no nasty surprises next Sunday night!

Hopefully we can also manage to spend some quality time together this next week without any bloodshed. There's a doctor's appointment on Thursday morning, but other than that, our time is our own. If the weather is nice maybe I'll be brave and venture to the park. If the temperature stays up where it's been, they can play outside in the backyard, and maybe we'll even drag out their bikes a bit. Hopefully we'll also manage a few playdates that just seem too much to handle in weeks that are already packed with school and activities. My oldest has a few friends from our old neighbourhood that she seems to only have time to see at birthdays and on holidays.

Still, by next Sunday night I expect I'll be doing a little dance of joy around 9pm. That is, if I have any energy left after all of that "quality time."

Well DUH!

Normal birth safe after Caesareans, says U.S. panel

http://www.parentcentral.ca/parent/babiespregnancy/pregnancy/article/778417--normal-birth-safe-after-caesareans-says-u-s-panel

WASHINGTON—Having a normal vaginal birth after previous babies were delivered surgically is perfectly safe and women should have the option, independent experts told the National Institutes of Health Wednesday.

They said there is no good reason to force a woman who has had one caesarean section to repeat such operations if she wants to try having later babies more naturally.

The experts cited “rigorous research” showing that at least trying natural labour is successful in nearly 75 per cent of cases, and women are less likely to die if they are allowed to labour naturally for a while, even if they end up delivering surgically.

“Declining vaginal birth after caesarean rates and increasing caesarean delivery rates over the last 15 years would seem to indicate that planned repeat caesarean delivery is preferable to a trial of labour,” Dr. F. Gary Cunningham, chairman of the NIH expert panel, said in a statement.
“But the currently available evidence suggests a very different picture: a trial of labour is worth considering and may be preferable for many women,” added Cunningham, the chairman of obstetrics and gynecology at the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center at Dallas.

The panel cited two recent surveys of hospital administrators that showed 30 per cent of hospitals had stopped offering women the option of trying labour if they had undergone one caesarean. Some doctors fear that the incisions from the first operation could burst open during the pressure of contractions, endangering mother and baby.

But studies have shown the rate of rupture is less than 1 per cent.

The American College of Obstetrics and Gynecology does not recommend vaginal delivery for women who have had three or more C-sections.

Rates of caesarean sections have risen steadily in the United States, from 20.7 per cent of births in 1996 to 31.1 per cent in 2006. And nearly 40 per cent of the caesareans performed in the United States each year involve women who have had previous C-sections.

The issue has become controversial, with some lobby groups pressing hard for women to be given the option of having vaginal birth after caesarean, or VBAC.

“There’s still a lot we don’t know about which women will be successful in having a VBAC, but we believe it’s essential that women’s desires and preferences be respected throughout the decision-making process,” Cunningham said.

 

Salmonella recall for snacks, soup mixes... so far

Foods are being recalled worldwide after salmonella was found in hydrolyzed vegetable protein (HVP) produced by Basic Food Flavors Inc. in Las Vegas. HVP is a flavour-enhancing, grain-based additive used in processed foods such as soups, hot dogs, chilis, stews, dips, salad dressings, gravies, frozen dinners, and snack foods.

Health Canada says that it is "low risk" and unlikely to cause damage to anyone's health, but it's highlighted the importance of knowing where the ingredients in foods come from. HVP is "often used" in Canadian foods, and the recall seems likely to grow in the coming days.

Basic Foods, according to the FDA, continued to distribute bulk HVP even after the company was warned of salmonella found during an inspection.

The Canadian list of recalled foods can be found here.

The US list can be found here.

More information about HVP and the recall can be found on the Healthzone.ca website.

The Unkindest Cut? Massachusetts Government to Hear Argument Against Infant Circumcision

I've been debating all day whether or not to touch this topic. I honestly can't think of another one in the parenting jungle, even breast vs bottle or SAHM vs WOHM, that causes such heated, sometimes hateful discussions. I admit, too, that it is a topic that I feel very passionate about. I usually at least try to remain a little bit unbiased when I'm talking here, and I doubt that I will be able to this time. I may know the arguments from the other side, I just don't find them persuasive at all. That's probably putting it mildly, too.

However, I'm also trying to create awareness of parenting topics, especially ones in the news, and this one is out there. So, I will attempt to tone down the rhetoric, but I make no promises of success. I'm a big opponent of the Mommy Wars, as I've stated numerous times, but it's quite likely that I'll lose a reader or two over this one.

That being said, as I write this, I've made a decision: I will write this from my point of view, and if a reader disagrees with me, and wants to write a rebuttal, I will post it. Deal?

A group in the US is taking its fight for the banning of infant male circumcision to the Massachusetts legislature. On March 2nd, the group, Bill to End Male Genital Mutilation, will appear at the State House to plead their case.

Personally, I doubt they will get very far. Circumcision is ingrained fairly deeply in US culture: nationally around 60% of baby boys have the procedure done within a few days of their births. Although the American Academy of Pediatrics says that there is no medical reason for routine infant circumcision, they have remained fairly neutral and refrained from actually coming out against the practice. There is still a lot of misinformation about the "benefits" of circumcision, plus the age old "He'll want to look like Daddy" argument. I actually heard about this issue from someone who referred to it as "ugly peen", and this was from a 41-year-old man I usually respect.

The other issue is that the leaders of the group may in fact turn people off: especially the one quoted in the article who went so far as to have a "foreskin restoration" in his 20s. Although he has valid points, he will be easy to tear down as a fringe activist.

So while I doubt that the group will get more than a token hearing, I do agree with them. There is no sound medical reason for routine circumcision. (Did I say that already? It bears repeating.) There is no other healthy body part that is routinely removed after birth. Should we remove everyone's appendix immediately because someday they may get appendicitis? Remove all baby girls' breast tissue because they may someday get breast cancer? Perhaps if the baby has mom's nose they should be given a nose job immediately because it's "ugly"?

"Personal choice" is a phrase I hear tossed around a lot. This I agree with, but the "person" involved differs in my opinion. By performing infant circumcision, you remove the choice of the person involved. The baby cannot argue with you. This is not a parent making a lifesaving medical decision for their child: this is a parent deciding on permanent cosmetic surgery, and I simply don't think that's one of our rights as a parent.