theflyingfish

"There's a world of difference between CONTROLLED crying and leaving a kid to become distressed" I'm not sure. Controlled crying is leaving a baby to become distressed. There is a massive WEALTH of scientific peer reviewed academic work that indicates that the technique of controlled crying raises cortisol (stress hormone) levels in the brain which has the effect of impeding brain development in infants. For professional health visitors to be ignorant of this growing body of research is unforgivable and in my opinion negligent. No amount of obfuscating Gina Ford books or parents sitting around saying 'well it worked for me' change what the body of the research says. If people did some further reading, this would be uncomfortable reading for some people no doubt, and I have no wish to appear preachy or to appear critical of other people's choices , but there is clear evidence out there. Crying is a reflex action when the baby wants comfort or has some other need. Controlled crying 'works' when the carer has in effect 'broken' the child's reflex - the child has learned nothing, it has merely given up. If it has learned anything it is that mum or dad do not come when they are called. Even when the baby has stopped crying, massively increased levels of cortisone are still recorded, but still the baby does not cry, they lie there and suffer anxiety and stress in silence. It is a damn shame that the techniques are so popular and being pedalled everyday in books that sell millions.

Good idea.

Trust your instincts, and there is lots of scientic evidence to show that controlled crying is harmful (one or two days won't be don't worry about that). Some more enlightened goverments than ours (such as Australia) have provided health warnings that it can damage the emotional development of children. Unforetunately co ntrolled crying has become part of how we rear children in this country thanks to the prevalence of so-called experts such as Jo Frost and Gina Ford. Frankly the HV is talking out of her <snip>. Is she a child psychologist? No. Is she medically trained? No. Alsom, a child at that age is not capable of manipulating you or 'playing' you - the brain is simply not well enough developed. The child wants their mum and dad with them, it really is that simple, and what's wrong with that? My wife and I lie down with our 18mth old every night till she is asleep. Sometimes it is 7 o'clcok, sometimes 8 and on occasion 11. But it's no problem, because she feels safe and secure and it is our job to make sure she feels like that.

If you didn't understand that, then you really must be stupid. Reading comprehension fail. Deliberately misunderstanding something on an Internet forum really is the markings of a moron.

I am saying I don't believe that you have any idea of what persecution for your beliefs is. Were you living in fear? Have you ever been arbitraly detained? Are you beaten up for your atheism? Forced to live in a ghetto with like minded people? It is nothign short of pompous to try and have me believe that you have experienced persecution as an atheist. To suggest otherwise is an insult to millions of people on this planet. You are also so completely uttlerly foolish to not see the hypocrisy in every single one of your posts, where you have a go at people based on their beliefs.

I supposed until very recently, you live in real and actual (as opposed to made up for the purpose of being santimonious on an Internet forum) fear of arbitrary arrest? It must have been awful, you poor little bear. I don't know how you could stand the inhumanity of your treatment. I apologise and thank you for your utterly selfless fight to stand up for my rights to be an atheist and, err, umm, aah...

Ha ha ha - because they ignore (imaginary) notices on doors that affect them directly! ROFL! Everyone has a sign up saying 'No Jehova's Witnesses', that's hilarious! And hopw, prey are atheists persecuted? Really tell me how, I am interested. Because in my mind persecution means something entirely different from what it obviosuly means to you.

Maybe she didn't want to get into a fight with you about it? Maybe she said that as a defence against constant insults against her? Maybe some do and some don't find it offensive? You sound like Jim Davidson saying "I have a black mate - Chalky, his name was" Are you seriosuly suggesting that it is not a pejorative term? Look at how it is used in this thread. Context is everything - no-one is using the term in this thread to mean anything positive. And how are atheists persecuted!? Ha ha ha ha! I bet you have to contend with just the most awful intolerance every day of your life! I am one myself laugh in the face of your immature comment. You really are ignorant.

No I am not a 'Jovo' - I just thought someone should stand up for a persecuted minority. We live in a country where people are free to pursue their religious beliefs as they see fit. The fact that you are totally comfortable using a pejorative term to describe a religious community illustrates my points about intolerance perfectly, but sadly you do not even have the faintest inkling that this sort of talk is insulting. I suppose you think it is OK to call Jews Yids?

The bit that says "Friends of FSTDT"

It is incredibly hypocritical, is it not, to link to a website in your signature that derides intolerance and prejudice and also links to this website, which you list as a friend: http://www.religioustolerance.org/ Way to go, woo!

You'll all be telling Mother in Law jokes next. I imagine you all sat inside your poky little houses laughing at 'Love thy Neighbour'.

Aah, yet again, the good people of Sheffield advertising for all the world to see that they are still stuck in the 1970s. This kind of talk in other cities would count as a historic archive. Sheffieldforum appears on the first page of Google results. A visitor clicks on it, and this is the sort of stuff they see? No wonder the rest of the country looks down on and laughs at Sheffielders.

Just so I understand this correctly, there are people here who feel strongly that the right to smoke outweighs the responsibility to an unborn child? So it is ok for a mother to smoke the day before the child is born? Is it then Ok for parents to expose a child a day after the child is born to passive smoking? Only 2 days between them, one in the womb, one outside the womb, do different rules apply?

Really? Do you have no compassion at all for a child that is made ill by women smoking when pregnant?