# Ridiculous Natural Consequence



## olliepop (Jun 26, 2007)

*Apparently my 8 year old nephew was at the beach with his parents (my SIL) and refused to put on sunscreen. (They live in Florida.) So instead of figuring out a way to get him to do it, they both pretty much said, "Fine, burn." And burn he did. So badly that he had to miss school the following day and take a trip to the ER.

Why? Why would you let that happen to your child?*


----------



## muttmom92 (Mar 20, 2005)

Wow! Really?! I think I would have just told my child if he wouldn't put on the sunscreen, he couldn't go to the beach.

I hope he heals quickly. Bad sunburns hurt!


----------



## abac (Mar 10, 2005)

A trip to the ER for a sunburn?

I can understand why they wouldn't want to get into an argument with an 8 year old about sunscreen. I assume that if they live in Florida, and he's 8, he knows about sunburns. I probably would have said the same thing, but I would still take measures to protect him from a bad burn. I probably would have left the beach before it got that bad.


----------



## chfriend (Aug 29, 2002)

One of my children has auburn hair and is melanin challenged. I'm having a hard time getting my mind around her not using sunscreen or a hat/cover at the beach. What got them into that power struggle in the first place?


----------



## Katie Bugs Mama (Feb 1, 2004)

That's awful!







The short-term consequences of their decision are bad enough, but don't they realize that bad sunburns in childhood are closely linked to adult skin cancer. Grr.









Would it be take as too passive-aggressive if you sent the poor boy a rashguard?


----------



## BelovedK (Jun 7, 2005)

yeah, the most natural consequence for that would be to not be able to play on the beach (sucks for the parents, but to let the child burn??!?)


----------



## nichole (Feb 9, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *chfriend* 
One of my children has auburn hair and is melanin challenged. I'm having a hard time getting my mind around her not using sunscreen or a hat/cover at the beach. What got them into that power struggle in the first place?

My four year old has issues with any kinda lotion, stamps, tatoos, you name it...it feels funny to him. I would have to leave, make him wear a hat and a long sleeve shirt, or force the sunscreen on him. He has a lot of melanin though so if we are going in the backyard for an hour (lots of shade) I don't make him.

When we go to the beach we don't stay more than 1-2 hours. I sunburn really easily. My ds (4yo) got sun poisoning once when we stayed for 4 hours.

Interesting thread.


----------



## TanyaS (Jun 24, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *abac* 
A trip to the ER for a sunburn?

For some people, sunburns can be so nasty that a trip to the ER is necessary. My dh got burned badly on a trip to the Bahamas despite wearing sunscreen. He was in utter misery and pain. We went to the ER in the Bahamas, then again as soon as he got off the plane at home (the Bahama meds weren't helping).

As for the OP, if this were my child, we would leave the beach. No question.


----------



## ThreeBeans (Dec 2, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *abac* 
A trip to the ER for a sunburn?

.

Severe sunburns can be second degree. They can be excruciatingly painful, cause scarring, dehydration and even heatstroke.

Holy cow, what a terrible parenting decision.


----------



## olliepop (Jun 26, 2007)

Quote:

My four year old has issues with any kinda lotion, stamps, tatoos, you name it...it feels funny to him.
He doesn't have any issues. He's worn it tons of times. For whatever reason he didn't want to this time. Whether he was being stubborn or not, his parents could have dealt with it much better. I just feel bad for him.

To the pp who suggested I send him a sun shirt, his parents would probably trash it on principle. They don't feel bad. They actually think they taught him a lesson and that the consequence is fitting.


----------



## gsd1amommy (Apr 6, 2007)

My son has an awesome sunshirt with skull and cross bones on it and trunks to match. I can't remember where we got them but he thinks they are so cool and won't go into the pool without them on. If I trashed them on principle, he would have a stroke. Get a cool shirt and give it to him as Happy Summer gift.


----------



## siobhang (Oct 23, 2005)

'course the real question is - did it work? Does the kid now want to wear sunscreen?


----------



## Heavenly (Nov 21, 2001)

Wow! What a horrible thing to do. Child sunburns are linked with developing skin cancer.


----------



## dubfam (Nov 4, 2005)

Wow. ITA that a lot of ppl take the whole "natural consequences" thing a little too far.
In safety situations like this I think that a parent imposed consequence makes
PERFECT sense.

So the kid suffered the natural consequences of his refusal to wear the sunscreen, and got severely burned.

I think Grounding him from going to the beach until he is ready to be safe is more GD than than letting him suffer the natural consequence for sure. But there are a lot of ppl who are so committed to GD that they never impose consequences...like letting them suffer much more severe natural consequences is more GD.







:

Wow. Poor Kid


----------



## dubfam (Nov 4, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *TanyaS* 
For some people, sunburns can be so nasty that a trip to the ER is necessary. My dh got burned badly on a trip to the Bahamas despite wearing sunscreen. He was in utter misery and pain. We went to the ER in the Bahamas, then again as soon as he got off the plane at home (the Bahama meds weren't helping).

As for the OP, if this were my child, we would leave the beach. No question.

OT a little...
I bet that plane ride was HELL for your poor DH
I can't even imagine


----------



## Demeter9 (Nov 14, 2006)

I imagine the parents didn't expect it to be that bad.

I've had nasty sunburns - I'm a freckled redhead (not so red anymore). There is a chance I would have made this bad decision myself.


----------



## bri276 (Mar 24, 2005)

that's abusive, I can't believe they don't even feel bad


----------



## Sharlla (Jul 14, 2005)

People have been put in jail for neglect for that. No sunscreen = no time outside in my house.


----------



## Redifer (Nov 25, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *ThreeBeans* 
Severe sunburns can be second degree. They can be excruciatingly painful, cause scarring, dehydration and even heatstroke.

Holy cow, what a terrible parenting decision.

Just have to second this:

I've still got scars from a high second, low third degree sunburn I got as a child, even wearing SPF 80. I'm a redhead with very fair, sensitive skin. My entire left arm and upper back are scarred (under freckles, so hard to see), and I almost needed a skin graft to correct the damage.

I've also gotten burnt so bad I turned dark purple, swelled up twice my size, and couldn't see straight with the pain. It was horrific. I couldn't get out of bed, or even roll over. My grandmother had to teach me to use a bedpan for the week.

We just moved to FL, and DH insisted he didn't need sunblock. He's part Native American, part Italian, and tans to a (oh so envious here) dark bronze. Well, he wouldn't believe me, and he got his first second degree sunburn. He was laid out for 4 days.

So, I'm hyper about my kids, who both have my coloring. They HAVE to wear sunblock, or we don't go to the beach. I won't let them burn as badly as I have as a 'natural' consequence.


----------



## mamalisa (Sep 24, 2002)

I have pasty Irish kids and sunscreen is not an option. I remember getting a sunburn at the pool so bad that I had blisters. My mom wouldn't leave becuase she really enjoyed being at the pool. Nice huh? I would have made my kid sit under the umbrella or in the car. I wouldn't have left and ruined the trip for the whole family, but he wouldn't have been out in the sun for sure! I'd not risk future skin cancer on my kid to prove a point.


----------



## angelpie545 (Feb 23, 2005)

Well, I think there is a time and place for everything, and at this time, I cannot see how any parent would think it was just "okay" to let your kid get severely burned.







: Had it been me, I would have said sunscreen or we're leaving, period. Some things are non-negotiable.


----------



## dillonandmarasmom (May 30, 2005)

I am sorry, but I am thinking of a not very nice "natural consequence" for that boy's parents







.

Poor little guy. How painful.


----------



## nextcommercial (Nov 8, 2005)

I bet he's a miserable little boy. Is he o.k?

Did they forget he didn't put on sunscreen and stay out longer than they meant to? I can't imagine allowing that in good consience.

I think "fine, then stay here" would have been a better consequence.


----------



## odenata (Feb 1, 2005)

I have to agree with previous posters that allowing your child to get second degree burns (which I'm guessing this was, since it required a trip to the ER) is a horrible parenting decision that does border on negligence.

If he wanted to run in the street would they have let him do that and just get hit by a car so he would learn?







:


----------



## Liquesce (Nov 4, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *nextcommercial* 
Did they forget he didn't put on sunscreen and stay out longer than they meant to? I can't imagine allowing that in good consience.

I know when I've been badly sunburned I've had no idea until I got in out of the strong light, and I know it's happened when I was a child under adult supervision who didn't see it either ... was it maybe something like that? I mean, totally bad decision to not slather the kid up, cover him up, or go home, but I just can't imagine a parent intentionally watching a child badly burn and doing nothing either ...


----------



## lilyka (Nov 20, 2001)

ya know I don't know the kid, how he does in the sun or anything so I won't judgethe parents for their descision. i would have likely said the same thing. But a day at the pool with no sunscreen just makes for a slightly uncomfortable burn. However i do try to watch them and make sure they aren't getting too red or over heated or whatever.

It was a bad descision no doubt abuot it but I doubt your SIl saw this coming. She probably expected a slight suburn with irritating itching.


----------



## EarthMamaToBe (Feb 19, 2008)

intentionally allowing a child to receive a sunburn so bad that it required a visit to the emergency room is at the very least neglect and possibly abuse IMO. If the child would not wear sunscreen he should have been removed from the beach. THAT is a natural consequence. When I was a child at the lake if we did not wear a lifejacket and sunscreen we had to stay in the house.


----------



## dubfam (Nov 4, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Liquesce* 
I know when I've been badly sunburned I've had no idea until I got in out of the strong light, and I know it's happened when I was a child under adult supervision who didn't see it either ... was it maybe something like that? I mean, totally bad decision to not slather the kid up, cover him up, or go home, but I just can't imagine a parent intentionally watching a child badly burn and doing nothing either ...


Quote:


Originally Posted by *lilyka* 
ya know I don't know the kid, how he does in the sun or anything so I won't judgethe parents for their descision. i would have likely said the same thing. But a day at the pool with no sunscreen just makes for a slightly uncomfortable burn. However i do try to watch them and make sure they aren't getting too red or over heated or whatever.

It was a bad descision no doubt abuot it but I doubt your SIl saw this coming. She probably expected a slight suburn with irritating itching.

Unfortunately that isn't the case according to the OP

Quote:


Originally Posted by *olliepop* 
He doesn't have any issues. He's worn it tons of times. For whatever reason he didn't want to this time. Whether he was being stubborn or not, his parents could have dealt with it much better. I just feel bad for him.

To the pp who suggested I send him a sun shirt, his parents would probably trash it on principle. *They don't feel bad. They actually think they taught him a lesson and that the consequence is fitting.*


----------



## Qestia (Sep 26, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *lilyka* 
ya know I don't know the kid, how he does in the sun or anything so I won't judgethe parents for their descision. i would have likely said the same thing. But a day at the pool with no sunscreen just makes for a slightly uncomfortable burn.


Maybe for your kids, you have no idea what the child in the OP's skin is like. For my DH, the situation you describe would mean a trip to the ER.


----------



## Liquesce (Nov 4, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *dubfam* 
Unfortunately that isn't the case according to the OP

I guess I can just imagine my own parents having said "well, that's what happens when you do X" and having it completely come off in a "we taught you a lesson" way without having really meant for it to have happened, you know? My mother is a champ of overprotection alongside a "those are the breaks" attitude when something _does_ happen. But maybe I'm just overly playing devil's advocate ... I don't know what the parents actually said, just what the impression of it was.


----------



## dubfam (Nov 4, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Qestia* 
*Maybe for your kids*, you have no idea what the child in the OP's skin is like. For my DH, the situation you describe would mean a trip to the ER.

I think that is what she meant


----------



## thebarkingbird (Dec 2, 2005)

we're all pretty brown here. i would let DS stay out for a while but we'd definitely leave early if he wouldn't at least put on long clothes.


----------



## TanyaS (Jun 24, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *dubfam* 
OT a little...
I bet that plane ride was HELL for your poor DH
I can't even imagine

It was awful for him. Before we went to the ER in the Bahamas, we spent the night putting towels soaked in ice water on his back. He described it as a very painful itch. We flew halfway across the US to get home, left the airport and went straight to the ER on the way home. I can't imagine what this poor boy is going through.


----------



## LotusBirthMama (Jun 25, 2005)

As a fair person who had 2nd degree burns throughout childhood, that sucks hardcore that the parents did that.

Every burn ups your chances for developing skin cancer. I am a very high risk due to the amount of burns and the scarring I have b/c my parents never once thought to use sunscreen.

Our job is to keep our kids as safe as possible and if they want to do something harmful we intervene. I would have said no beach w/o sunscreen.


----------



## fresh_water (Feb 29, 2008)

OMG. That's just wrong. No sunscreen= no beach. That simple.


----------



## rootzdawta (May 22, 2005)

The consequence of not putting on sunscreen is to get burned, true enough. The child will never forget. But he will also remember that his parents who he trusts to take care of him and protect him (even if it requires force), didn't do their job just to teach him a lesson. A serious breech of trust.

Admittedly, I'm not the most GD parent around and the beach is almost 2 hrs. from here. Leaving is not an option--not after all that effort it would have taken to get there. My kids don't run the show like that--especially not an 8 year old. Dad would have been holding the tike down while I slather on the sunscreen.


----------



## pixilixi (Jun 20, 2006)

I get that your in laws might have thought "a little bit of sunburn might show him", even if I think that's really unwise and neglectful when it comes to something serious like sun protection. Perhaps they didn't think that he would sunburn so badly.

The thing that I really can't understand is how they aren't feeling awful now. If my actions (especially if deliberate) had caused my son to burn like that, I would feel unbelievably dreadful and ashamed.


----------



## talk de jour (Apr 21, 2005)

I can see why they did that, honestly -- I've never had a bad sunburn, and honestly the thought of them being any more than pink and a little peely would never have occurred to me in that situation.

I've got a lot of natural melanin, though, despite being very light-skinned and blue-eyed, and I've never experienced a bad sunburn. I can absolutely understand why they just didn't think it through to that particular conclusion.


----------



## karina5 (Apr 15, 2006)

That is SERIOUSLY messed up. GAWD, this makes me upset that they let that happen!


----------



## Laggie (Nov 2, 2005)

I'm just jealous of anyone who lives in a place where it's sunny enough for a burn right now. We haven't seen a day like that yet this year!

Mind you, up here in Kanadia you'd have to be out *all day* in July or August to get a burn that bad. I remember being shocked at how fast I got sunburned in the Southern USA. Normally I don't burn, ever. I think that if you live in Florida you're bound to get a sunburn sooner or later. It sucks that it was so bad he had to go to the hospital though, poor kid.

DD is the worrying type, so no worries about her suffering the consequences of no sunscreen. She even wanted me to sunscreen her armpits last year.


----------



## Katie Bugs Mama (Feb 1, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *lilyka* 
ya know I don't know the kid, how he does in the sun or anything so I won't judgethe parents for their descision. i would have likely said the same thing. But a day at the pool with no sunscreen just makes for a slightly uncomfortable burn. However i do try to watch them and make sure they aren't getting too red or over heated or whatever.

It was a bad descision no doubt abuot it but I doubt your SIl saw this coming. She probably expected a slight suburn with irritating itching.

The OP was talking about a day at the beach in FLORIDA, not a day by the pool in NORTH DAKOTA! The two things are worlds different from one another. The sun in Florida is _intense_. I even burned in Florida -- in the late afternoon even --and my olive skin never burns in Maryland.

What these parents did was foolish and dangerous.


----------



## lah7 (Dec 31, 2006)

I'm of a mind that intentionally allowing your child to get burnt is neglect at best. Even if they didn't expect him to get THAT burnt, their intent was for him to get a sunburn of some sort, with the accompanying risks and pain.

I personally would never do that. Then again, I'm a pasty-white redhead who used to get sunpoisioning in tropical Ohio as a kid. I got 2nd degree burns after 4pm in Mexico. My dermatologist told my mom not to let me play outside from 10am-2pm, again *in Ohio*. Getting a sunburn that bad is so painful, that I can't imagine someone letting that happen to a child. It just makes me sick to my stomach to imagine my DD in the same kind of pain I've been in!

My eldest daughter takes after me, and my other two, thankfully, don't. But
I would NEVER inflict that kind of pain on any child, no matter how much I wanted them to learn a lesson. They could spend the beach time sitting in the open car for all I care, but allowing the kid to get fried is just terrible.


----------



## Plummeting (Dec 2, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *dubfam* 
I think Grounding him from going to the beach until he is ready to be safe is more GD than than letting him suffer the natural consequence for sure. But there are a lot of ppl who are so committed to GD that they never impose consequences...like letting them suffer much more severe natural consequences is more GD.







:
(


I disagree with the way you've presented GD. Letting a child get a severe sunburn has NOTHING to do with being "committed to GD". There's NOTHING gentle about letting a child become seriously injured just to teach the child a lesson. Gentle discipline is about _protecting_ and _teaching_ the child in a _respectful_ way. These parents didn't protect the child and they weren't respectful of the child, because they were so concerned about their own plans for the day (to spend it at the beach) that they didn't worry about his safety. That's NOT being "committed to GD". Please don't make the mistake of misclassifying stupid parenting choices as gentle discipline. That's the kind of thing that gives GD a bad name.

In that situation, we would have left the beach if the child refused to be safe. I'm not personally a big fan of sunscreen. Most of them cause damage to the skin that can eventually lead to cancer, so there's no real net benefit. However, I would never let my child get a severe sunburn just so they'd learn a lesson. That's negligent and it's NOT discipline - gentle or otherwise. It's child abuse.


----------



## Demeter9 (Nov 14, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Laggie* 
I'm just jealous of anyone who lives in a place where it's sunny enough for a burn right now. We haven't seen a day like that yet this year!

Mind you, up here in Kanadia you'd have to be out *all day* in July or August to get a burn that bad. I remember being shocked at how fast I got sunburned in the Southern USA. Normally I don't burn, ever. I think that if you live in Florida you're bound to get a sunburn sooner or later. It sucks that it was so bad he had to go to the hospital though, poor kid.

DD is the worrying type, so no worries about her suffering the consequences of no sunscreen. She even wanted me to sunscreen her armpits last year.









I live in Canada, and I assure you that I've been burned to a crisp on overcast days. I've also been burned to blistering at least 20 times in a couple of hours outside in May, June, July and August and early September.

I'm not a big fan of sunscreen, even now. Neither are any of the other people in my extended family with my colouration. So I can see even me making this mistake.


----------



## dubfam (Nov 4, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Plummeting* 
I disagree with the way you've presented GD. Letting a child get a severe sunburn has NOTHING to do with being "committed to GD". There's NOTHING gentle about letting a child become seriously injured just to teach the child a lesson. Gentle discipline is about _protecting_ and _teaching_ the child in a _respectful_ way. These parents didn't protect the child and they weren't respectful of the child, because they were so concerned about their own plans for the day (to spend it at the beach) that they didn't worry about his safety. That's NOT being "committed to GD". Please don't make the mistake of misclassifying stupid parenting choices as gentle discipline. That's the kind of thing that gives GD a bad name.

In that situation, we would have left the beach if the child refused to be safe. I'm not personally a big fan of sunscreen. Most of them cause damage to the skin that can eventually lead to cancer, so there's no real net benefit. However, I would never let my child get a severe sunburn just so they'd learn a lesson. That's negligent and it's NOT discipline - gentle or otherwise. It's child abuse.

I am not saying it was GD...just that some ppl will really roll with the whole "Natural Consequences" thing to an extreme point BC they are trying to do GD.
I have seen it IRL (nothing as extreme this situation) where parents wont step up and be the authority when they need to...all in the name of GD (again...I am not saying that it IS GD...it's not at all IMO)


----------



## lilyka (Nov 20, 2001)

I will admit that I have never been to florida but here in South Dakota the sun shines just as hot as it did in TX and it could be pretty wretched in TX. Like I said, I don't know what the mom was thinking but obviously she did not know her child and his sun tolerance as well as she thought she did. I don't think she made a good choice but I can understand the thinknig behind it.


----------



## elisent (May 30, 2006)

I'm a fair skinned blonde who never tans and always burns.

When I was 14 I went the lake for a church picnic. My mom left early and had another family bring me home. I had no idea that sunscreen washes off in water and ignored my mom when she said I should apply more later in the day in case it wore off.

By 4 or 5 it looked like I had a minor sunburn. I felt sick and started vomiting. They took me home and by evening I was dark red and very, very sick with sunburn poisoning. I probably should have been seen by a doctor.

I still worry that I will end up with skin cancer from all the sunburns I had as a child. I am so very careful about putting sunscreen on my children and I think they've only had a minor burn once.


----------



## LotusBirthMama (Jun 25, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Plummeting* 
I'm not personally a big fan of sunscreen. *Most of them cause damage to the skin that can eventually lead to cancer*, so there's no real net benefit.

Link, please.


----------



## abac (Mar 10, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *LotusBirthMama* 
Link, please.

http://www.ajph.org/cgi/reprint/82/4/614


----------



## LotusBirthMama (Jun 25, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *abac* 
http://www.ajph.org/cgi/reprint/82/4/614

Thank you!


----------



## odenata (Feb 1, 2005)

This link is a from a different angle, but is again questioning sunscreen. Personally, I don't have concern about the chemicals in sunscreen causing cancer, but do have concerns about it's non-effectiveness.

Essentially, sunscreen has never been shown to be very effective against preventing melanoma, the most dangerous form of skin cancer. And because people slather sunscreen on and then think it's okay to spend long amounts of time in direct sun, and don't get burned, they greatly increase their chances of melanoma through longer sun exposure. A better route is to spend shorter amounts of time in the sun and use hats and rashguards or long sleeve shirts.

Quote:

In 1980, an American's lifetime melanoma risk was 1 in 250. Today, it's 1 in 84.


----------



## dubfam (Nov 4, 2005)

:


----------



## artgoddess (Jun 29, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *olliepop* 
To the pp who suggested I send him a sun shirt, his parents would probably trash it on principle. They don't feel bad. They actually think they taught him a lesson and that the consequence is fitting.

Holy Carp. Yeah, not a choice I would make. As the parent I take responsibility for my kids safety, and I accept that there are many areas where I know better than they do. I would never shrug and say, "Well if we get in a crash and you die then you'll know I was right you should be in the car seat." either.


----------



## JesseMomme (Apr 6, 2002)

Oh wow.

We've done many a trips to the beach and pools and my rule is to have sunscreen on all children before we even leave the house or wherever we are indoors or we just don't leave. I mean, direct sunlight plus sunlight bouncing off the water plus very white skin, I consider it a safety thing, really.


----------



## soso-lynn (Dec 11, 2007)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *rootzdawta* 
The consequence of not putting on sunscreen is to get burned, true enough. The child will never forget. But he will also remember that his parents who he trusts to take care of him and protect him (even if it requires force), didn't do their job just to teach him a lesson. A serious breech of trust.

Admittedly, I'm not the most GD parent around and the beach is almost 2 hrs. from here. Leaving is not an option--not after all that effort it would have taken to get there. My kids don't run the show like that--especially not an 8 year old. Dad would have been holding the tike down while I slather on the sunscreen.









I completely agree. There are situations where you need to hold your kid down and put on the sunscreen. I believe the G in GD stands for Gentle and there is nothing gentle about ending up in the ER with severe burns. I don't see how that is different than spanking the poor child. He might have learned that he can burn if he does not wear it, but has learned nothing about being able to trust that his parents have his best interest at heart and will protect him. Discipline starts with trust.


----------



## LotusBirthMama (Jun 25, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *odenata* 
This link is a from a different angle, but is again questioning sunscreen. Personally, I don't have concern about the chemicals in sunscreen causing cancer, but do have concerns about it's non-effectiveness.

Essentially, sunscreen has never been shown to be very effective against preventing melanoma, the most dangerous form of skin cancer. And because people slather sunscreen on and then think it's okay to spend long amounts of time in direct sun, and don't get burned, they greatly increase their chances of melanoma through longer sun exposure. A better route is to spend shorter amounts of time in the sun and use hats and rashguards or long sleeve shirts.

Ok..so the sunscreen isn't causing cancer, but rather people think they are safe from risk (since they aren't getting burned) and get overexposed and thus develop melanoma. Do I have that right?

So saying most of them cause damage to the skin that can eventually lead to cancer is incorrect.

I still plan to slather it on regardless of whether it will keep me from getting melanoma b/c sunburn freaking hurts and I hate it. But, as a near albino I do not spend extended time in the sun even with SPF 10000.


----------



## queenjane (May 17, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *soso-lynn* 
I completely agree. There are situations where you need to hold your kid down and put on the sunscreen. I believe the G in GD stands for Gentle and there is nothing gentle about ending up in the ER with severe burns. I don't see how that is different than spanking the poor child. He might have learned that he can burn if he does not wear it, but has learned nothing about being able to trust that his parents have his best interest at heart and will protect him. Discipline starts with trust.

Can you describe a situation in which you would need to *hold your kid down and put on the sunscreen* ? I can see making the choice to not allow the child on the beach, or to leave early. But to hold them down? Maybe *maybe* with a toddler in which you can't reason (similar to possibly "holding them down" to change a diaper, doing it as quickly and painlessly as possible...still, i think there are other options.)

With an 8 yr old? Not so much. I have an 11 yr old who, a couple of summers ago on the beach in the hot Michigan sun, didnt want to reapply sunscreen after being in the water awhile. I told him what might happen, he didnt care. He got burned, unfortunately, quite badly, and i think he will never refuse to put on sunscreen again. We've talked about that incident, about how burns can cause future cancers, about how one of his uncles had a bout with skin cancer....my son is now empowered when it comes to sunscreen, and rather than it being about me "forcing" him to wear it, its about him taking an active role in his own health and wellbeing.

There is a vast area between "force him to wear sunscreen" and "let him burn to a crisp to teach him a lesson"....i havent read every post in this thread, so maybe its been addressed...but what about a sunshirt? What about agreeing to no sunscreen if he agrees to come under an umbrella every fifteen minutes? Would he prefer to apply the sunscreen himself, and have more control? Would it have been easier to apply the sunscreen well before getting to the beach, so that the excitement of being there didnt interfere with the decision? Just throwing ideas out...not sure any would work. But i know i try very hard to be partners with my child, put our relationship first (therefore there is no "teaching a lesson"), and work WITH him to come up with solutions we can both live with.

Was this the first time this child ever refused sunscreen? If not, then the parents should have been planning all along for other options.

Katherine


----------



## odenata (Feb 1, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *LotusBirthMama* 
Ok..so the sunscreen isn't causing cancer, but rather people think they are safe from risk (since they aren't getting burned) and get overexposed and thus develop melanoma. Do I have that right?

So saying most of them cause damage to the skin that can eventually lead to cancer is incorrect.

I still plan to slather it on regardless of whether it will keep me from getting melanoma b/c sunburn freaking hurts and I hate it. But, as a near albino I do not spend extended time in the sun even with SPF 10000.

I should mention that article is outdated, however, the general point is one I agree with - that sunscreen is not a miracle that protects you from all damage. It helps, though. And today's sunscreens have better UVA protection than when this article was written. I still think people depend on them way too much, and don't use them properly.


----------



## thismama (Mar 3, 2004)

This thread is an excellent example of how sometimes parent imposed consequences are necessary in parenting.


----------



## Vancouver Mommy (Aug 15, 2007)

I will admit that I sometimes have trouble determining what an appropriate "natural consequence" is, particularly when the outcome is likely to cause injury. But in this case I feel that it's the parents' responsibility to avoid serious harm.


----------



## Tigerchild (Dec 2, 2001)

I dunno.

To be honest, I would not be surpised if the parents thought he would just get a regular sunburn, and now they're feeling extra defensive (hence the, "well, maybe he'll learn now" comments). Most people frankly get a little defensive when a parenting decision they've made turns out to be not very good.

I would not call this abuse, but perhaps my standard is higher than most people. To me, abuse means that you feel that the child being removed from the home would be warrented, and a one time thing like this to be blunt does not pass muster for me. Flame away.

So these folks made a stupid parenting decision and now are feeling defensive about it and acting like they don't care. I've certainly been there, though I've never had that kind of consequences for my stupidity as these people do. I also have to laugh that some people think that you can wrestle an 8 year old child to the ground and forcibly apply a slippery substance to them. If they'd done that, you'd have even more people calling it abuse.

They made a stupid mistake. They should have just not gone to the beach that day (though to be honest, I can understand the impulse to say "fine then, why should you ruin our day too" when you have a kid that's being obnoxious). People often make stupid mistakes that result in injury to their children, or near misses. So I don't see the need to roast the parents.

But hey, as I've already disclosed, I've made plenty of stupid parenting decisions, I've just been damned lucky that none of them resulted in injury...yet. And if it did I'd be devastated, but knowing myself I doubt that I'd sob on people's shoulders about it and if people tried to load me up with their own outrage I'd probably tell them to shove off. So i guess I'm a little less reluctant to throw stones since I'm far from perfect myself. I also tend to be less on the "protective" end of the spectrum than most people here. But then again, I'm pretty stubborn and hate going to the beach so I would have just said "Cool, guess we're staying in then. I'll go grab my book!"


----------



## S.Raine-Drop (Apr 5, 2008)

He is 8 years old! That is old enough to know better, I would have probably said the same thing. He will learn. Alternatively I might have said "fine no sun screen, no beach!"

I'd like to add, not everyone burns.. I don't know if the mother knew her son WAS a burner or not but I grew up in scortching mid-western summers, never once wore sun screen, spent everyday outside and never once burned. I now live in Hawaii, no burning for me.


----------



## queenjane (May 17, 2004)

Well said, TC!

I am personally a little disturbed that some think not forcing a child to wear sunscreen (or allow them to stay at the beach and not force them to leave) is *abusive* or that it is *neglect* . Like you, i think my standards for those two very serious words are a bit different.









If a parent would not force a child to wear a helmet (and this was not against the law where they live), and the child gets hurt, do you think its *abusive* (instead of perhaps a poor parenting decision, or decision you disagree with) on the part of the parents? There are so many practices here at MDC that mainstream culture would (wrongly)consider "abusive" or "neglectful" (not vaxing, cosleeping, bfing an older child, homebirthing or UC, etc) that i just think we should be careful about throwing that word around.

Kids can get burned very quickly, before the parent even knows, when my son got a very severe burn we didnt even notice it was happening until the sun went down and he came into the cottage...sometimes it takes awhile for a burn to set in, and by then its too late.









Katherine


----------



## rootzdawta (May 22, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *queenjane* 
Well said, TC!

I am personally a little disturbed that some think not forcing a child to wear sunscreen (or allow them to stay at the beach and not force them to leave) is *abusive* or that it is *neglect* . Like you, i think my standards for those two very serious words are a bit different.









If a parent would not force a child to wear a helmet (and this was not against the law where they live), and the child gets hurt, do you think its *abusive* (instead of perhaps a poor parenting decision, or decision you disagree with) on the part of the parents? There are so many practices here at MDC that mainstream culture would (wrongly)consider "abusive" or "neglectful" (not vaxing, cosleeping, bfing an older child, homebirthing or UC, etc) that i just think we should be careful about throwing that word around.

Kids can get burned very quickly, before the parent even knows, when my son got a very severe burn we didnt even notice it was happening until the sun went down and he came into the cottage...sometimes it takes awhile for a burn to set in, and by then its too late.









Katherine

I guess it is abusive if the parents knew that the boy would burn. It they didn't think so (which is damn hard to believe because I am quite dark skinned and still burn on the beach with no sunscreen/shade/protective clothing), then it's not abusive. If they knew it was possible, I think it is abusive. All the things you mentioned that MDC parents do are things that are done out of love NOT to teach uncooperative kids a lesson.

And yes, it is neglect, if you *know* that it's statistically safer to wear a helmet while riding a bike/scooter and you don't enforce it.

And as far as I'm concerned, holding a child down to put on sunscreen is more gentle to me then letting him burn (and no 8 years old is not too big for me to do it). Better that than a trip to the emergency room. And like I said, I'm not leaving the beach after 2 hrs. to get there because _my_ child won't listen. Sorry. Not gonna happen.


----------



## saimeiyu (Aug 13, 2007)

If my 8 year old refused to wear sunscreen, I'd tell him he could refuse and get burnt, wear a Tshirt, or stay in the shade. Then again, my mom always used to force that crap on me when I was little because she burns like a lobster... I never got burnt UNLESS I was wearing sunscreen, so I don't care for the crap.

If you are used to wearing sunscreen when you're out, it could be *really* hard to judge when it's time to get out of the sun, and I could realistically see the parents just not realizing it, and then getting defensive about it, as the PP said.

Of course, I don't think it would ever have occurred to my parents to take us to the ER for a SUNBURN. That was just part of childhood. So I at least, have to give the parents props for taking the kid to the ER. I'd have just gotten him some Un-Burn with lidocaine in it or something, and some Aloe Vera, and I'm sure that's what my parents would have done. Of course, I've never seen a second-degree burn from sunburn, either, and I grew up in Phoenix. So, I guess if it was THAT bad things might have been different.









So I don't consider it particularly abusive or neglectful, and crappy as it may be, I'll bet that kid will NEVER stay out in the sun that long again w/out taking care to cover up with SOMETHING.

In any case, I'm sure even if they don't SAY it they probably feel pretty bad. They felt bad enough to take him to the ER, didn't they?


----------



## abac (Mar 10, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *rootzdawta*
And yes, it is neglect, if you *know* that it's statistically safer to wear a helmet while riding a bike/scooter and you don't enforce it.

Well, we do lots of things that are statistically safer not to do. Are all of them neglect? Say putting your child in a car, for example. Super big risk there, whether the child is wearing a seatbelt or not. The biggest risk is being in the car in the first place. We are willing to assume certain risks because of the benefits, like getting around quickly in a car. Some people see benefits to not wearing a bike helmet, too.

I must be abusive and neglectful, since I don't put sunscreen on my child, (and we are out in the sun all day,) and I don't make him wear a bike helmet either.









I have to wonder how I made it through childhood alive.


----------



## sithlordswife (Jan 16, 2007)

And as far as I'm concerned, holding a child down to put on sunscreen is more gentle to me then letting him burn (and no 8 years old is not too big for me to do it). Better that than a trip to the emergency room. And like I said, I'm not leaving the beach after 2 hrs. to get there because _my_ child won't listen. Sorry. Not gonna happen.[/QUOTE]

I agree. My kids are fairly dark but they will still get sunsick pretty easy. If I allowed them to get severely burned (I've lived in Florida and most people there should have the sense to take Florida sun seriously) or let them ride without their helmets, it would be me that's out of line. Next thing getting in a bike accident without your helmet will be a "logical consequence."


----------



## rootzdawta (May 22, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *sithlordswife* 
Next thing getting in a bike accident without your helmet will be a "logical consequence."

Exactly.

The difference is knowing something painful and dangerous might happen to your child and letting it, even willling it to happen so the child learns a lesson.

A more accurate example with the bike helmet is that you tell your child to put it on knowing that perhaps there's a lot of debris on the street today. The child says no and goes off to ride his bike. Then falls off after encountering the debris and gets a concussion that requires an emergency room visit. And you as the parent says "Serves you right. I told you to wear your helmet."

Oh, and I'm not a huge sunscreen advocate. Heck, I don't wear sunscreen or put it on my kids. We're dark and don't burn easily. A hat usually is good enough for us. So I hope no one is thinking I'm pushing sunscreen. I'm just saying.


----------



## gabysmom617 (Nov 26, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *rootzdawta* 
I guess it is abusive if the parents knew that the boy would burn. It they didn't think so (which is damn hard to believe because I am quite dark skinned and still burn on the beach with no sunscreen/shade/protective clothing), then it's not abusive. If they knew it was possible, I think it is abusive. All the things you mentioned that MDC parents do are things that are done out of love NOT to teach uncooperative kids a lesson.

And yes, it is neglect, if you *know* that it's statistically safer to wear a helmet while riding a bike/scooter and you don't enforce it.

And as far as I'm concerned, holding a child down to put on sunscreen is more gentle to me then letting him burn (and no 8 years old is not too big for me to do it). Better that than a trip to the emergency room. And like I said, I'm not leaving the beach after 2 hrs. to get there because _my_ child won't listen. Sorry. Not gonna happen.









:


----------



## ThreeBeans (Dec 2, 2006)

If a child is injured in a biking accident because his parents didn't force him to wear a helmet, yes, that parent is guilty of neglect.

A few years ago, my husband treated a seven year old who suffered a moderate head injury in a bike accident. Her grandmother was watching her at the time. When the girl said, "I can't ride a bike because my mom doesn't let me without a helmet," the grandmother told her she didn't need one.

My husband chewed the grandmother out. She then tried to report him to the police for harassment. The police officer issued her a citation, so she tried to report my husband to the hospital, who then turned her into CPS for neglect.


----------



## dubfam (Nov 4, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *thismama* 
This thread is an excellent example of how sometimes parent imposed consequences are necessary in parenting.

This EXACTLY

There are times for parent imposed consequences...IDK where all of the Anti Parent imposed consequence posters are, but I am not seeing them on this thread









You cannot GD in every single situation without occasionally imposing a consequence (in safety situations)..otherwise, it isn't GD (bc natural consequences can be dangerous)

some people refuse to see that, however, and then situations like this happen


----------



## queenjane (May 17, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *ThreeBeans* 
If a child is injured in a biking accident because his parents didn't force him to wear a helmet, yes, that parent is guilty of neglect.

A few years ago, my husband treated a seven year old who suffered a moderate head injury in a bike accident. Her grandmother was watching her at the time. When the girl said, "I can't ride a bike because my mom doesn't let me without a helmet," the grandmother told her she didn't need one.

My husband chewed the grandmother out. She then tried to report him to the police for harassment. The police officer issued her a citation, so she tried to report my husband to the hospital, who then turned her into CPS for neglect.


Yeah, he turned her in. And you know what CPS probably did? *Nothing!* Because Grandma allowing her gc to ride a bike without a helmet doesnt even come close to their definition of neglect. Because they are overwhelmed with, yknow REAL cases of neglect. (btw, your husband "chewed out" a grandmother who was dealing with her hospitalized grandchild?? So badly that she felt she had to contact the police? Nice.)

i guess you think parents who turned their kids FF at a year are guilty too? I bet there are some here who think allowing free access to tv is neglect (after all, doesnt it damage brainwaves







)...what about a mom who feeds her kids McDonalds every day? Doesnt that increase the child's risk of cancer and all sorts of other things? Neglect!

I guess i just have a totally different definition of neglect, after reading so many 'waiting child' histories for adoption, reading what those kids have gone through (REAL abuse and neglect)....your parents not forcing you to wear sunscreen just doesnt come close.

Katherine (whose child must just be so incredibly neglected)


----------



## queenjane (May 17, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *dubfam* 
This EXACTLY

There are times for parent imposed consequences...IDK where all of the Anti Parent imposed consequence posters are, but I am not seeing them on this thread









You cannot GD in every single situation without occasionally imposing a consequence (in safety situations)..otherwise, it isn't GD (bc natural consequences can be dangerous)

some people refuse to see that, however, and then situations like this happen

Ummm....no where in the OP was it stated that the family was GD, in fact they dont sound like they are into GD at all. Why do people keep bringing that up? Those of us who are not into forcing kids to do things they dont want to do, have stated we would try to find alternatives, compromises, plan ahead, work it out (whereas others have seemed to offer forcing or leaving)...i dont think its very "GD" to say "Burn then!"....at the same time, i think we need to keep in mind that the poster was not actually *there* during the incident, and we dont know who she heard this story from (was it SIL herself relating that she didnt care if the child burned? Or another family member?)

Its sad that this has turned into a thread of "well of course there are just situations i need to FORCE my kid to comply" as if those of us who disagree are ridiculous, neglectful, or don't care about our kids. Are there situations in the past 11 yrs where i've made my son do something he didnt want to do? Of course. Is it better for our relationship in general to work really hard at coming up with a solution that meets both of our needs? YES! Sure, its not as easy as just saying "well we're leaving then!" or using force, but i think its worth it.

Katherine


----------



## dubfam (Nov 4, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *queenjane* 
Ummm....no where in the OP was it stated that the family was GD, in fact they dont sound like they are into GD at all. Why do people keep bringing that up?

Because we always talk GD around here!!








They never stated that they aren't GD









But really, how would you handle this situation without imposing any consequence, without forcing sunscreen and without staying home from the beach (imposed consequence)?

My point is that there are times when you either let the child experience a natural consequence that is too harsh, or you impose a consequence. There are situations where those are the only choices. I don't encounter situations like this often, but when I do I will impose a consequence.

I don;t see a way around that (this is assuming that the child WILL NOT be talked into it...)


----------



## ThreeBeans (Dec 2, 2006)

Quote:

Yeah, he turned her in. And you know what CPS probably did? *Nothing!* Because Grandma allowing her gc to ride a bike without a helmet doesnt even come close to their definition of neglect. Because they are overwhelmed with, yknow REAL cases of neglect. (btw, your husband "chewed out" a grandmother who was dealing with her hospitalized grandchild?? So badly that she felt she had to contact the police? Nice.)

i guess you think parents who turned their kids FF at a year are guilty too? I bet there are some here who think allowing free access to tv is neglect (after all, doesnt it damage brainwaves







)...what about a mom who feeds her kids McDonalds every day? Doesnt that increase the child's risk of cancer and all sorts of other things? Neglect!

I guess i just have a totally different definition of neglect, after reading so many 'waiting child' histories for adoption, reading what those kids have gone through (REAL abuse and neglect)....your parents not forcing you to wear sunscreen just doesnt come close.
Oh, get off your high horse. The HOSPITAL turned her in, not my husband, and yeah, the woman deserved to be chewed out, since she caused her grandchild to be injured. She also deserved the citation, as she violated state law.

And, yes, CPS did "do something". The parents were instructed not to allow grandma to babysit the child again until grandma had completed a child safety course offered by the state. The parents were pretty pissed, too, so it was sort of a moot point.

I have a feeling you actually know almost nothing about abuse, neglect, or how CPS functions.

Unfortunately, I do.


----------



## ThreeBeans (Dec 2, 2006)

For the record, I have also "chewed out" parents who through their own actions have led directly to the injury or illness of their children. Just because Grandma tried to report harassment doesn't mean some actually occurred. She got told for being neglectful and she got what was coming to her.


----------



## queenjane (May 17, 2004)

Actually i am quite aware of how CPS operates. What constitutes "neglect" of course will vary, as state laws vary (for example, in my state children are not yet required to be in a carseat past age four, this is changing this summer, and AFAIK children are not required to wear a bike helmet.) I am also a licensed foster parent, and hopeful adoptive parent who has seen often how much it takes to bring kids into care. Not wearing sunscreen usually doesnt pass that test!

how would i handle the situation? As i wrote before, i would offer a sunshirt, i would find out *why* the child doesnt want to wear the sunscreen and address that, i would have probably applied sunscreen before getting to the beach, i would have found out if there was another way that was acceptable to the child (applying himself, using a different kind...my son likes the spray kind better than the lotion...applying to only certain parts of the body that are most likely to be burned, for example, just the back, or just the face, maybe he would have been amenable), i would have suggested coming into the shade every so often to cool off, i would make certain he understood the consequences (both immediate and long term) of a bad burn, i would not just offer once to put on sunscreen and then "let him burn", i would revisit the situation after a half hour, an hour, etc. I would offer situations that would get him out of the sun (lets go have an ice cream under that umbrella, lets go cool off in the car, here let me put a cool cloth on your cheeks, whatever...) Ultimately, would any of this get the kid to take the sunscreen, or prevent a burn, etc? I dont know. But i think its worth a try before going to either extreme (force, or not caring.)

Katherine


----------



## queenjane (May 17, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *ThreeBeans* 
For the record, I have also "chewed out" parents who through their own actions have led directly to the injury or illness of their children.

Oh, i have no doubt you have. I just dont think its the most effective method of getting your point across...."educate, dont berate."









Katherine


----------



## mamatoablessing (Oct 17, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *fresh_water* 
OMG. That's just wrong. No sunscreen= no beach. That simple.

Unfortunately, it's not that simple. When the whole family wants to go to the beach, we do not let one of the children dicate whether we go or not because of the refusal of sunscreen. Sorry. I would offer two choice: sunscreen or long sleeves and pants. Period.


----------



## sithlordswife (Jan 16, 2007)

i guess you think parents who turned their kids FF at a year are guilty too? I bet there are some here who think allowing free access to tv is neglect (after all, doesnt it damage brainwaves







)...what about a mom who feeds her kids McDonalds every day? Doesnt that increase the child's risk of cancer and all sorts of other things? Neglect!

I guess i just have a totally different definition of neglect, after reading so many 'waiting child' histories for adoption, reading what those kids have gone through (REAL abuse and neglect)....your parents not forcing you to wear sunscreen just doesnt come close.

Katherine (whose child must just be so incredibly neglected)[/QUOTE]

My mom and I are both social workers. These things do constitute neglect. SW's are not only involved in cases of horrific abuse and neglect where the kids are snatched away to safety. Just because a parenting act is not worthy of being on the six o'clock news does not mean its not neglect. I can see the parents being upset and raging, hopfully the CW's handled it in a professional manner meant to educate, not attack.


----------



## ShadowMom (Jun 25, 2004)

Peple certainly do throw the words "abuse" and "neglect" around here easily.

I don't feel it's too out there to say I'm guessing the parents never imagined their son would get a burn that bad. They may have actually planned to leave earlier, or lost track of time (which can happen whether you're wearing sunscreen or not), or lots of other things.

It's pretty easy to criticize when it isn't one of us making the mistake... and I'm pretty sure we all make hoardes of them.

Quote:


Originally Posted by *rootzdawta* 
And yes, it is neglect, if you *know* that it's statistically safer to wear a helmet while riding a bike/scooter and you don't enforce it.

Well, technically driving a car is neglect then because it's statistically much safer to not drive.


----------



## rootzdawta (May 22, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *ShadowMom* 
Peple certainly do throw the words "abuse" and "neglect" around here easily.

I don't feel it's too out there to say I'm guessing the parents never imagined their son would get a burn that bad. They may have actually planned to leave earlier, or lost track of time (which can happen whether you're wearing sunscreen or not), or lots of other things.

It's pretty easy to criticize when it isn't one of us making the mistake... and I'm pretty sure we all make hoardes of them.

Well, technically driving a car is neglect then because it's statistically much safer to not drive.

It's statistically safer not to do anything at all.







Let's be serious. Riding a bike can be dangerous just like driving a car--heck, you might argue that it's actually _more_ dangerous to ride a bike. You do things to minimize the danger to the *best* of your ability with the information you have available and you do them consistently--whether a child "feels like it" or not.


----------



## queenjane (May 17, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *sithlordswife* 

My mom and I are both social workers. These things do constitute neglect.

Which "these things" specifically, in the list i provided?

Katherine


----------



## ThreeBeans (Dec 2, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *queenjane* 
Oh, i have no doubt you have. I just dont think its the most effective method of getting your point across...."educate, dont berate."









Katherine

When you are actively trying to keep a child from dying because of the parent's stupidity, and the parent could care less that he/she caused the problem, nice words and pats on the back are extremely misplaced.


----------



## saimeiyu (Aug 13, 2007)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *ThreeBeans* 
When you are actively trying to keep a child from dying because of the parent's stupidity, and the parent could care less that he/she caused the problem, nice words and pats on the back are extremely misplaced.

Sunburns don't usually end up with the kid dying. I think that's a little extreme.


----------



## thismama (Mar 3, 2004)

Just a bit.


----------



## olliepop (Jun 26, 2007)

Quote:

It was a bad decision no doubt about it but I doubt your SIL saw this coming. She probably expected a slight suburn with irritating itching.
I don't think they thought it would be that bad.

Quote:

OMG. That's just wrong. No sunscreen= no beach. That simple.
This would have been the better decision, however they didn't want to ruin the trip for the whole family.

I don't know if it worked to teach him a lesson. I'm getting all my info from MIL, but I guess we'll see what happens the next time they ask him to wear sunscreen.

I don't think I was clear in the OP, but they do not practice GD...at all.


----------



## thismama (Mar 3, 2004)

I wouldn't ruin the trip for the whole family either. I would tell the child sunscreen or you sit all day in the shade, that's it. Or sit in the car, or something. Sunscreen is mandatory, basically would be the message.


----------



## muttix2 (Apr 24, 2005)

There would be sunscreen on my child if I had to apply it myself. Burns are no joke.


----------



## graceomalley (Dec 8, 2006)

To the OP, please get the parents some information about how they can now trace cancer and it's been proven beyond doubt that one bad burn can cause cancer. I live in Australia and there are always magazine articles about teenagers dying from ONE burn they got as a child.

If that child is diagnosed with melanoma and dies, his parents should be held accountable.


----------



## ThreeBeans (Dec 2, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *saimeiyu* 
Sunburns don't usually end up with the kid dying. I think that's a little extreme.

I wasn't talking about sunburns







:


----------



## LotusBirthMama (Jun 25, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *graceomalley* 
To the OP, please get the parents some information about how they can now trace cancer and it's been proven beyond doubt that one bad burn can cause cancer. I live in Australia and there are always magazine articles about teenagers dying from ONE burn they got as a child.

*If that child is diagnosed with melanoma and dies, his parents should be held accountable*.

I think thats ridiculous. And I had burns with blisters at least2x a summer from age 6ish to teenagehood. I really don't think my parents (who just never knew better) need to be held responsible if i ever get melanoma.


----------



## EarthMamaToBe (Feb 19, 2008)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *ShadowMom* 
Peple certainly do throw the words "abuse" and "neglect" around here easily.

I don't feel it's too out there to say I'm guessing the parents never imagined their son would get a burn that bad. They may have actually planned to leave earlier, or lost track of time (which can happen whether you're wearing sunscreen or not), or lots of other things.

So as long as you don't "think" any cars will come it's okay to let your child run into the street and if you don't "think" strangers means any harm to your child it's okay to let them wander around unattended. I guess these people who leave their children in cars for hours because "they lost track of time" should be totally excused because the "never imagined" the child could die in the car? I suppose there is no point in seatbelts, carseats or bike helmets because I don't think there will be an accident?

ne·glect (nhttp://img.tfd.com/hm/GIF/ibreve.gif-glhttp://img.tfd.com/hm/GIF/ebreve.gifkthttp://img.tfd.com/hm/GIF/prime.gif)_tr.v._ *ne·glect·ed*, *ne·glect·ing*, *ne·glects* *1.* To pay little or no attention to; fail to heed; disregard

*2.* To fail to care for or attend to properly

*3.* To fail to do or carry out, as through carelessness or oversight

The US Gov defines abuse as"
Any act or *failure to act* on the part of a parent or caretaker, which results in death, physical or emotional harm, sexual abuse, or exploitation, or an act or failure to act which presents an imminent risk of serious harm

*Can sunburn cause permanent damage?*

Yes. Sunburn early in life increases the risk of developing skin cancer later on. Repeated overexposure to ultraviolet rays can also scar, freckle, dry out, and wrinkle the skin prematurely. In addition, frequent overexposure to ultraviolet rays can increase the risk of developing eye cataracts and macular degeneration, a leading cause of blindness.

In severe cases of sunburn, the victim may experience fever, nausea, chills, dizziness, rapid pulse, rapid breathing, shock, and loss of consciousness (sometimes called sun poisoning). Obviously, such symptoms require emergency treatment.

How is allowing a child to be burned (no matter what by) NOT at the VERY LEAST neglect?


----------



## karina5 (Apr 15, 2006)

Here's what I would do. I would try all the nice things I saw people posting. Giving child option to put lotion on himself, option to stay under the umbrella, talking to him about it, etc, etc.. but if for some weird reason the child still refused to put on suntan lotion and stay in the shade, then yep, I would do what I had to to pin him down.

I had 2nd degree sunburn when I was 18. I was an idiot who wore a sleeveless shirt to an all-day concert, and I am telling you the pain I suffered was awful and I will never forget it. I do think letting a child get a sunburn like this on purpose is way wrong, and just as my son does not have a choice about whether or not to ride in his carseat, he would end up having no choice about the sunscreen.

But yes, I would certainly try to do everything I could to have him work with me before "forcing" it on him.


----------



## graceomalley (Dec 8, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *LotusBirthMama* 
I think that's ridiculous. And I had burns with blisters at least 2x a summer from age 6ish to teenage hood. I really don't think my parents (who just never knew better) need to be held responsible if i ever get melanoma.

I'm not talking about parents who don't know better - I'm talking about parents who know the dangers and still deliberately let their child get a severe sunburn which has the potential to turn into a deadly case of cancer.

How's this for a better analogy. In the early 1900s, parents didn't know that tobacco was dangerous. They let their kids have a smoke every now and then. Should they be held responsible for those kids then getting lung cancer? Of course not. BUT if a parent these days lets their child smoke cigarettes of course they should be held responsible. We all know the risks. To suggest otherwise is the ridiculous thing.

Also, while I'm on my soapbox - I need to mention that I'm not a huge fan of sunscreen. I think the chemicals in it are nasty. But you can bet that if we go to the beach or pool my children are slathered in it. Living under an ozone hole makes you cautious about things, and watching your friends die due to melanoma isn't pleasant. However, there's more to sun safety than letting your skin soak up some chemicals. The other important aspects of sun safety (which a lot of parents forget) are:

*stay out of the sun during the danger time
* wear protective clothing (long sleeves in a light material, or sunsafe bathing costumes, like a rash shirt)
* wear a hat
* stay in the shade
* wear sunglasses

BTW, since you had such bad burns, have you had your moles checked by a GP? They check them under a special light to see if there's any danger of them becoming cancerous (if you catch them early you can reduce the risk of melanoma developing).


----------



## graceomalley (Dec 8, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *EarthMamaToBe* 
So as long as you don't "think" any cars will come it's okay to let your child run into the street and if you don't "think" strangers means any harm to your child it's okay to let them wander around unattended. I guess these people who leave their children in cars for hours because "they lost track of time" should be totally excused because the "never imagined" the child could die in the car? I suppose there is no point in seatbelts, carseats or bike helmets because I don't think there will be an accident?

ne·glect (nhttp://img.tfd.com/hm/GIF/ibreve.gif-glhttp://img.tfd.com/hm/GIF/ebreve.gifkthttp://img.tfd.com/hm/GIF/prime.gif)_tr.v._ *ne·glect·ed*, *ne·glect·ing*, *ne·glects* *1.* To pay little or no attention to; fail to heed; disregard

*2.* To fail to care for or attend to properly

*3.* To fail to do or carry out, as through carelessness or oversight

The US Gov defines abuse as"
Any act or *failure to act* on the part of a parent or caretaker, which results in death, physical or emotional harm, sexual abuse, or exploitation, or an act or failure to act which presents an imminent risk of serious harm

*Can sunburn cause permanent damage?*

Yes. Sunburn early in life increases the risk of developing skin cancer later on. Repeated overexposure to ultraviolet rays can also scar, freckle, dry out, and wrinkle the skin prematurely. In addition, frequent overexposure to ultraviolet rays can increase the risk of developing eye cataracts and macular degeneration, a leading cause of blindness.

In severe cases of sunburn, the victim may experience fever, nausea, chills, dizziness, rapid pulse, rapid breathing, shock, and loss of consciousness (sometimes called sun poisoning). Obviously, such symptoms require emergency treatment.

How is allowing a child to be burned (no matter what by) NOT at the VERY LEAST neglect?

Great post!


----------



## abac (Mar 10, 2005)

Quote:

How's this for a better analogy. In the early 1900s, parents didn't know that tobacco was dangerous. They let their kids have a smoke every now and then. Should they be held responsible for those kids then getting lung cancer? Of course not. BUT if a parent these days lets their child smoke cigarettes of course they should be held responsible. We all know the risks.
Oh, come on! You've got to be kidding!! So if your child is injured in a car accident, you should be held responsible for their injuries because you allowed them to get into a car knowing the risks involved?

You're being just plain ridiculous!


----------



## Mom2Joseph (May 31, 2006)

Grab those tomatoes ladies becuase I would have done the same thing.

yep. I would have. And probably used his allowance to pay the ER bill too...

8 years old and the entire family is at the beach. At that age they know better. And we would not have all given up our day, just because of it.

HOWEVER, keep reading here, lately, here in FL, where I have lived my entire life, the weather has been gorgeous. Gorgeously deceptive. A wonderful breeze and the sun shining and you just want to live in it forever. Days like that you can forget that burns that bad can happen. Seriously.

I can guess that the parents thought, on a day like that, (which is how it has been lately) that soon enough the 8 year old would be grabbing for some sunscreen or shade and that would be that. Or put on a shirt, or something.

Sounds like a natural consequence gone more than a little wrong, but I bet that kid learned a serious lesson. And guess what, I bet the parents did too. Sometimes a good idea can be taken too far.

God knows I know what that kind of burn is like... it is horrible, and I hope that poor kid feels better soon. And his parents too.


----------



## graceomalley (Dec 8, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *abac* 
Oh, come on! You've got to be kidding!! So if your child is injured in a car accident, you should be held responsible for their injuries because you allowed them to get into a car knowing the risks involved?

You're being just plain ridiculous!











Of course not. But if the kids weren't wearing seatbelts I'd hold them responsible.


----------



## abac (Mar 10, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *graceomalley* 









Of course not. But if the kids weren't wearing seatbelts I'd hold them responsible.

I'm not sure how you decide which risks are acceptable and which aren't.


----------



## graceomalley (Dec 8, 2006)

Usually risks which are unacceptable are well known. There are laws about making your kids wear seatbelts and there are laws which prevent parents from letting their children smoke cigarettes. Parents have been prosecuted in the past for being so neglectful that their children sustained third degree burns from sun exposure.

As far as I am aware, there have been no parents prosecuted for allowing their children to take a ride in the car.

It's common sense.

http://www.newsnet5.com/news/3323192/detail.html


----------



## graceomalley (Dec 8, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Mom2Joseph* 

HOWEVER, keep reading here, lately, here in FL, where I have lived my entire life, the weather has been gorgeous. Gorgeously deceptive. A wonderful breeze and the sun shining and you just want to live in it forever. Days like that you can forget that burns that bad can happen. Seriously.

The weather doesn't have to be nice to get a bad sunburn. You can get just as bad a burn on an overcast day as a sunny day.

The insides of my nostrils have been sunburnt because the sun's rays were reflecting off snow.

4th paragraph of 'the sun's rays':
http://www.healthseakers.com/pages/sun/sunguide.html

2nd sentence:
http://www.forkshospital.org/healthlinks/sunburn.html


----------



## dubfam (Nov 4, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *graceomalley* 
The weather doesn't have to be nice to get a bad sunburn. You can get just as bad a burn on an overcast day as a sunny day.

The insides of my nostrils have been sunburnt because the sun's rays were reflecting off snow.

4th paragraph of 'the sun's rays':
http://www.healthseakers.com/pages/sun/sunguide.html

2nd sentence:
http://www.forkshospital.org/healthlinks/sunburn.html


I don;t think that anyone has said otherwise...


----------



## graceomalley (Dec 8, 2006)

I didn't say anyone had. I'm just up on my soapbox trying to give out as much information as possible because the misinformation and lack of understanding about sunburn in this thread has really shocked me.

I think I'll go and make myself a signature about it


----------



## queenjane (May 17, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *graceomalley* 
Usually risks which are unacceptable are well known. There are laws about making your kids wear seatbelts and there are laws which prevent parents from letting their children smoke cigarettes. Parents have been prosecuted in the past for being so neglectful that their children sustained third degree burns from sun exposure.

As far as I am aware, there have been no parents prosecuted for allowing their children to take a ride in the car.

It's common sense.

http://www.newsnet5.com/news/3323192/detail.html


That article was about a parent allowing very young children/infants to become sunburned. This is a *completely* different scenario, and has nothing whatsoever to do with the OP.

There is a big difference in not providing sunscreen to your child (esp in the case of an infant/toddler who has no choice...its not like they can reach over and put it on themselves!), and offering sunscreen to an 8 yr old who chooses not to wear it.

And we dont really know the extent of the 8 yr old's burn, yes he went to the hospital, but thats sometimes what people do when they are in pain. If his parents arent sitting in jail right now, then obviously it did not meet the hospital's criteria for neglect/something to report.

Katherine


----------



## queenjane (May 17, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *graceomalley* 
How's this for a better analogy. In the early 1900s, parents didn't know that tobacco was dangerous. They let their kids have a smoke every now and then. Should they be held responsible for those kids then getting lung cancer? Of course not. BUT if a parent these days lets their child smoke cigarettes of course they should be held responsible. We all know the risks. To suggest otherwise is the ridiculous thing.).

I'm quite amazed at the amount of control everyone here thinks that have over their kids.

If you had a 16 yr old, for example, who chose to smoke despite all your education and advice to the contrary....how exactly would you "not let them" smoke? And how would your actions affect your relationship with your child? And do you think that damage would be worth it?

Its interesting, because i posted the original scenario (just a summary) on a radical unschooling/mindful parenting site, and got completely different answers/suggestions/ideas that what the majority of posts here contain.

Katherine


----------



## dubfam (Nov 4, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *graceomalley* 
I didn't say anyone had. I'm just up on my soapbox trying to give out as much information as possible *because the misinformation and lack of understanding about sunburn in this thread has really shocked me.*

I think I'll go and make myself a signature about it










what exactly are you referring to?


----------



## saimeiyu (Aug 13, 2007)

Quote:

Usually risks which are unacceptable are well known. There are laws about making your kids wear seatbelts and there are laws which prevent parents from letting their children smoke cigarettes. Parents have been prosecuted in the past for being so neglectful that their children sustained third degree burns from sun exposure.
Wow. I really can't believe that you are seriously comparing letting a kid choose to not wear sunblock and getting burned to not buckling up your kid in the car, or providing a minor with cigarettes. That's just phenomenal.

As far as I'm aware, there are NO laws that say you MUST put sunblock on your child, or suffer legal consequences. Sure, letting kids get a THIRD DEGREE burn is pretty bad and I kind of think you have to go to some sort of effort to not notice your kid is burning that badly. I can't imagine not noticing, but then, my family doesn't burn as long as we don't spend sunup to sundown in the sun, with no shade and no going inside at all, so









Also, I personally don't consider not wearing sunblock an "unacceptable risk" because, well, you know what? Sunblock doesn't prevent you from getting cancer later in life. All it does is make you THINK you're protected from that bad mean ol' cancer-causing sun.


----------



## queenjane (May 17, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *saimeiyu* 
Sure, letting kids get a THIRD DEGREE burn is pretty bad and I kind of think you have to go to some sort of effort to not notice your kid is burning that badly. I can't imagine not noticing, but then, my family doesn't burn as long as we don't spend sunup to sundown in the sun, with no shade and no going inside at all, so









The one time my son got a very bad burn was when we spent several days at the cottage on the lakefront (this is in MI), my son DID have sunscreen on, but going in and out of the water and sweating washed some of it off, and even though i reapplied after a time, because he was somewhat wet, it didnt really take. He played out all day, and came in at evening time....then the burn hit him, and he spent the better part of the next hour in a cold shower, crying and freaking out, while i sped miles into town for some burn relief meds...neither of us (nor any of the other adults present) had ANY idea he was burning that badly. I could see streaks down his back that werent burned, where the sunblock must have worked (as it ran down his back due to the wetness)....my son is a redhead, but doesnt burn like my redhead niece (who gets red cheeks if she is out in the sun for two seconds), my son can be out w/o sunscreen and not burn quickly. So yes, we were surprised at the severity of the burn. I would say that for most burns, you dont necessarily realize how bad it is until its much later.

And my son, who would resist putting on sunscreen alot before that, has said he will never refuse again. And i've done my part by getting him a swimshirt and a variety of different types of sunblock (spray on, stick for the face) to make application easier, less messy, and is more acceptable to him "sensory" wise (he hated the goopy lotion type.)

Katherine


----------



## Needle in the Hay (Sep 16, 2006)

I'm not much of an A or B thinker, at least when it comes to my kid. I don't see it as A) he wears sunblock or B) he doesn't get to play at the beach. We've always been able to work something out, and maybe it's the confidence that of course we will work something out that makes the difference.


----------



## Plummeting (Dec 2, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *LotusBirthMama* 
Link, please.

The link provided is actually not what I was referring to. Most sunscreens contain nanoparticles. Upon exposure to light (you're going to be in the sun!), the nanoparticles _themselves_ form free radicals that could result in cancer, if they reach the living skin cells under the strateum cornum. The industry claims they can't penetrate the outer layer of the skin. Do you believe them? I don't. Some research says the nanoparticles can penetrate the outer "dead" layer, some says they can't. They definitely can when there's broken skin, even if it's just a tiny bit you wouldn't even notice.

Quote:

Ok..so the sunscreen isn't causing cancer, but rather people think they are safe from risk (since they aren't getting burned) and get overexposed and thus develop melanoma. Do I have that right?
Unfortunately, no. Look up nanoparticles. They've never undergone any sort of official safety testing. They accumulate in the environment. Some of them kill plants, animals and bacteria. And we have some evidence they can _cause_ skin cancer through the formation of free radicals, which damage DNA. Most sunscreens nowadays contain nanoparticles. If you are going to put on sunscreen, you need to find one that protects against both UVA _and_ UVB and that _does not contain nanoparticles_. Otherwise, you're either not preventing cancer because you aren't protecting against UVA and UVB, or you're using an unproven product that might cause the exact problems you're hoping to avoid.

Oh, and aside from all of that, there is also evidence that applying sunscreen all the time increases the risk of cellular damage the times you forget. Basically, it's good to get a little sun now and then - it can _prevent_ skin cancer.


----------



## Plummeting (Dec 2, 2004)

I don't really understand the huge debate here over whether or not this was abusive. Maybe they didn't realize he would burn that badly. Okay, fine, then unintentionally letting him burn would not be abusive. _However_, when you're taking your kid to the ER for a severe burn and you're feeling _good_ about it, feeling that your kid got what he deserved? THAT is abuse. Perhaps to some people abuse is all about _intent_ to cause physical harm, but I completely disagree. Let me give a little example. When I was in sixth grade, a boy in my class, a friend of mine, basically assaulted me at lunch. He got me behind a door, twisted my arm _very painfully_ behind my back and said he wouldn't let go until I told him he could touch my butt. I was terrified. The boy was suspended from school for sexual assault, but the administrators apparently didn't think it was serious enough to bother calling my parents or letting me call them. This, of course, was not my parents' fault. They had nothing to do with it, they weren't there, they had no control over it. No abuse there. But then I went home that day and told my stepmother what had happened. I was crying. I was afraid of what the boy would do to me when he came back to school. My arm was still hurting. You know what my stepmother did? She laughed. Then she said, "You're crying about _that_?" Then she laughed some more. When my dad got home, she told him about it at the dinner table, laughing all the while. Then my dad laughed about it.

And screw anyone who thinks their _attitude_ wasn't abusive. Parents do not have to intentionally physically injure their child to _treat_ them in a way that is abusive. To think they do is naive.

So the burn itself may have been unintentional and therefore may not qualify as abuse, but the attitude about the burn? Most definitely abusive.


----------



## ShadowMom (Jun 25, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Plummeting* 
I don't really understand the huge debate here over whether or not this was abusive. Maybe they didn't realize he would burn that badly. Okay, fine, then unintentionally letting him burn would not be abusive. _However_, when you're taking your kid to the ER for a severe burn and you're feeling _good_ about it, feeling that your kid got what he deserved? THAT is abuse. Perhaps to some people abuse is all about _intent_ to cause physical harm, but I completely disagree. Let me give a little example. When I was in sixth grade, a boy in my class, a friend of mine, basically assaulted me at lunch. He got me behind a door, twisted my arm _very painfully_ behind my back and said he wouldn't let go until I told him he could touch my butt. I was terrified. The boy was suspended from school for sexual assault, but the administrators apparently didn't think it was serious enough to bother calling my parents or letting me call them. This, of course, was not my parents' fault. They had nothing to do with it, they weren't there, they had no control over it. No abuse there. But then I went home that day and told my stepmother what had happened. I was crying. I was afraid of what the boy would do to me when he came back to school. My arm was still hurting. You know what my stepmother did? She laughed. Then she said, "You're crying about _that_?" Then she laughed some more. When my dad got home, she told him about it at the dinner table, laughing all the while. Then my dad laughed about it.

And screw anyone who thinks their _attitude_ wasn't abusive. Parents do not have to intentionally physically injure their child to _treat_ them in a way that is abusive. To think they do is naive.

So the burn itself may have been unintentional and therefore may not qualify as abuse, but the attitude about the burn? Most definitely abusive.

Well, that is an interesting point. Do we know for sure that they acted this way toward him, though? This thread has gotten very long and maybe I missed it. All I saw was some defensive comments the parents made.


----------



## dubfam (Nov 4, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *ShadowMom* 
Well, that is an interesting point. *Do we know for sure that they acted this way toward him, though?* This thread has gotten very long and maybe I missed it. All I saw was some defensive comments the parents made.

Exactly.

Quote:


Originally Posted by *olliepop* 
I don't know if it worked to teach him a lesson. *I'm getting all my info from MIL*, but I guess we'll see what happens the next time they ask him to wear sunscreen.

I don't think I was clear in the OP, but they do not practice GD...at all.

The OP hasn't even talked to the parents. Who knows what really happened?









.


----------



## Liquesce (Nov 4, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Plummeting* 
_However_, when you're taking your kid to the ER for a severe burn and you're feeling _good_ about it, feeling that your kid got what he deserved? THAT is abuse.

We don't know what they feel. We know what it was said that they indicated. Big difference.

Like I said way back when this thread was still relatively young, my mother would generally have said "that's what happens when _____." But she'd also have _felt_ terrible that whatever it was had happened and would have always made every future effort to ensure it wasn't repeated. My own son -- resident climber -- not so long ago toppled off of a chair he scampered up on when I had my back turned. I'm quite sure I probably made some manner of "that's what happens" remark a la my mother, but that doesn't mean I didn't hover over him watching like an absolute hawk when he got in the vicinity of furniture until he finally caught on to how to get down safely, and still watch like a semi-hawk just to make sure. Not saying "oh my god I'm a terrible mother, what a huge mistake!" and feeling smug about poor decisions and poor outcomes are two different things.


----------



## LynnS6 (Mar 30, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *abac* 
A trip to the ER for a sunburn?

My brother, at age 14, spent an afternoon canoeing in an aluminum canoe on a very sunny lake, with his shoes/socks off and pants rolled up. Because of his sensory issues, his legs otherwise NEVER saw the light of day. And like a pp, the whole family is 'melanin challenged'. (My dd skin is so fair you can see her veins!)

He got 2nd degree burns that were so bad the entire exposed are of his legs BLISTERED and he couldn't walk for a week.

I can see how a trip to the ER would be necessary.

I'm appalled that the parents let him get so sunburned that was necessary. At least my brother was off on his own (and had been warned!)


----------



## hippiemum21580 (Jul 14, 2007)

I think commom sense has to factor in somewhere. I have young kids who do not alwasy come when I call them and we live in an apartment complex where people sometimes drive too fast.....do I just let them get hit by a car or do I ignore natural consequence and run like hell and grab my child from danger?
I don't think I would have ruined the day for everyone, but I would make the child refusing to wear sunblock remain in the shade all day. I speak from experience as my 7 year old is a HUGE hater of lotions, etc... but he is also a very light skinned child so no ifs ands or buts!


----------



## hotmamacita (Sep 25, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *olliepop* 
*Apparently my 8 year old nephew was at the beach with his parents (my SIL) and refused to put on sunscreen. (They live in Florida.) So instead of figuring out a way to get him to do it, they both pretty much said, "Fine, burn." And burn he did. So badly that he had to miss school the following day and take a trip to the ER.

Why? Why would you let that happen to your child?*

That's dumb and missing the point.

I would have handled it very differently with an 8 year old.


----------

