sábado, 22 de enero de 2011

Is Extreme Parenting Effective?


Is Extreme Parenting Effective?

Does strict control of a child's life lead to greater success or can it be counterproductive?

Balancing Freedom With Discipline

Updated January 16, 2011, 11:42 AM
Yan Sun, a native of Sichuan, has lived in the United States since 1985 and been a professor of political science at the City University of New York since 1992. She has published two books as well as numerous academic papers about China.
Teaching in a college with a sizable population of Jewish, Indian and other ethnic groups, I can identify attitudinal traits that can only be loosely termed “Chinese.” The idea that Chinese mothers have some special or "superior" parenting style is at best a misconception, and at worse, nonsense.
What can get lost with too much parental guidance are individuality, creativity and leadership skills.
But if we want some sort of explanation, we can look to the Chinese culture for some clue. In China, the strong emphasis on striving in education comes from a long history of Confucian teachings and a tradition of grooming the best and brightest for the formidable imperial exams.
In contemporary times, strict and result-oriented parenting also has to do with anxieties created by a ubiquitous testing environment. In China, it is exacerbated by the one-child policy. The gaokao (college entrance exam), for example, has even been known to push students to suicide. Concerns over academic competition and professional opportunities have fueled demand for education and skill attainment by Chinese parents for their children.
There are decided benefits to a rigorous parenting style. Persistent drilling of skills can help children acquire proficiency in certain areas. Offering direction about career paths can help lead students toward more employable fields. But increasingly, Chinese and Asian Americans are paying attention to the downsides of this type of parenting. What often gets lost are individuality, creativity and leadership skills.
We worry about the paucity of Nobel laureates in the sciences in China, despite outstanding international test scores from Chinese students. We lament the gap between Chinese/Asian Americans’ academic achievements and the relatively few who reach top management ranks in the United States.
Chinese parents everywhere are changing. My family is a case in point. We find a combination of demanding and encouraging styles the ideal model. We never had a piano in our home because we did not understand why every Asian kid seems to play the piano. We let our kids choose their extracurricular activities, although the math team takes precedence over sports teams, which in turn comes before saxophone lessons. We may be disappointed that our older son may not major in physics, but at our suggestion, he wants to combine his economics major with mathematics. And yes, they should strive for A’s, but they will not be taken to task for lower grades as long as they make earnest efforts.
Topics: ChinaCulturechildrenmothers

Debaters

Why Parents Fear the Needle


Why Parents Fear the Needle

Wellesley, Mass.
Brian Stauffer


DESPITE overwhelming evidence to the contrary, roughly one in five Americans believes that vaccines cause autism — a disturbing fact that will probably hold true even after the publication this month, in a British medical journal, of a report thoroughly debunking the 1998 paper that began the vaccine-autism scare.
That’s because the public’s underlying fear of vaccines goes much deeper than a single paper. Until officials realize that, and learn how to counter such deep-seated concerns, the paranoia — and the public-health risk it poses — will remain.
The evidence against the original article and its author, a British medical researcher named Andrew Wakefield, is damning. Among other things, he is said to have received payment for his research from a lawyer involved in a suit against a vaccine manufacturer; in response, Britain’s General Medical Council struck him from the medical register last May. As the journal’s editor put it, the assertion that the measles-mumps-rubella vaccine caused autism “was based not on bad science but on a deliberate fraud.”
But public fear of vaccines did not originate with Dr. Wakefield’s paper. Rather, his claims tapped into a reservoir of doubt and resentment toward this life-saving, but never risk-free, technology.
Vaccines have had to fight against public skepticism from the beginning. In 1802, after Edward Jenner published his first results claiming that scratching cowpox pus into the arms of healthy children could protect them against smallpox, a political cartoon appeared showing newly vaccinated people with hooves and horns.
Nevertheless, during the 19th century vaccines became central to public-health efforts in England, Europe and the Americas, and several countries began to require vaccinations.
Such a move didn’t sit comfortably with many people, who saw mandatory vaccinations as an invasion of their personal liberty. An antivaccine movement began to build and, though vilified by the mainstream medical profession, soon boasted a substantial popular base and several prominent supporters, including Frederick Douglass, Leo Tolstoy and George Bernard Shaw, who called vaccinations “a peculiarly filthy piece of witchcraft.”
In America, popular opposition peaked during the smallpox epidemic at the turn of the 20th century. Health officials ordered vaccinations in public schools, in factories and on the nation’s railroads; club-wielding New York City policemen enforced vaccinations in crowded immigrant tenements, while Texas Rangers and the United States Cavalry provided muscle for vaccinators along the Mexican border.
Public resistance was immediate, from riots and school strikes to lobbying and a groundswell of litigation that eventually reached the Supreme Court. Newspapers, notably this one, dismissed antivaccinationists as “benighted and deranged” and “hopeless cranks.”
But the opposition reflected complex attitudes toward medicine and the government. Many African-Americans, long neglected or mistreated by the white medical profession, doubted the vaccinators’ motives. Christian Scientists protested the laws as an assault on religious liberty. And workers feared, with good reason, that vaccines would inflame their arms and cost them several days’ wages.
Understandably, advocates for universal immunization then and now have tended to see only the harm done by their critics. But in retrospect, such wariness was justified: at the time, health officials ordered vaccinations without ensuring the vaccines were safe and effective.
Public confidence in vaccines collapsed in the fall of 1901 when newspapers linked the deaths of nine schoolchildren in Camden, N.J., to a commercial vaccine allegedly tainted with tetanus. In St. Louis, 13 more schoolchildren died of tetanus after treatment with the diphtheria antitoxin. It was decades before many Americans were willing to submit to public vaccination campaigns again.
Nevertheless, the vaccination controversy of the last century did leave a positive legacy. Seeking to restore confidence after the deaths in Camden and St. Louis, Congress enacted the Biologics Control Act of 1902, establishing the first federal regulation of the nation’s growing vaccine industry. Confronted with numerous antivaccination lawsuits, state and federal courts established new standards that balanced public health and civil liberties.
Most important, popular resistance taught government officials that when it comes to public health, education can be more effective than brute force. By midcentury, awareness efforts had proven critical to the polio and smallpox vaccination efforts, both of which were huge successes.

One would think such education efforts would no longer be necessary. After all, today’s vaccines are safer, subject to extensive regulatory controls. And shots are far more numerous: as of 2010, the Centers for Disease Control recommended that every child receive 10 different vaccinations. For most Americans, vaccines are a fact of life.
Still, according to a 2010 C.D.C. report, 40 percent of American parents with young children have delayed or refused one or more vaccines for their child. That’s in part because vaccines have been so successful that any risk associated with their use, however statistically small, takes on an elevated significance.
It also doesn’t help that, thanks to the Internet, a bottomless archive of misinformation, including Dr. Wakefield’s debunked work, is just a few keystrokes away. All of which means the public health community must work even harder to spread the positive news about vaccines.
Health officials often get frustrated with public misconceptions about vaccines; at the turn of the last century, one frustrated Kentucky health officer pined for the arrival of “the fool-killer” — an outbreak of smallpox devastating enough to convince his skeptical rural constituency of the value of vaccination.
But that’s no way to run a health system. Our public health leaders would do far better to adopt the strategy used by one forward-thinking federal health official from the early 20th century, C. P. Wertenbaker of the Public Health and Marine-Hospital Service.
As smallpox raged across the American South, Wertenbaker journeyed to small communities and delivered speech after speech on vaccinations before swelling audiences of townsfolk, farmers and families. He listened and replied to people’s fears. He told them about the horrors of smallpox. He candidly presented the latest scientific information about the benefits and risks of vaccination. And he urged his audiences to protect themselves and one another by taking the vaccine. By the time he was done, many of his listeners were already rolling up their sleeves.
America’s public health leaders need to do the same, to reclaim the town square with a candid national conversation about the real risks of vaccines, which are minuscule compared with their benefits. Why waste another breath vilifying the antivaccination minority when steps can be taken to expand the pro-vaccine majority?
Obstetricians, midwives and pediatricians should present the facts about vaccines and the nasty diseases they prevent early and often to expectant parents. Health agencies should mobilize local parents’ organizations to publicize, in realistic terms, the hazards that unvaccinated children can pose to everyone else in their communities. And health officials must redouble their efforts to harness the power of the Internet and spread the good word about vaccines.
You can bet that Wertenbaker would have done the same thing.
Michael Willrich, an associate professor of history at Brandeis University, is the author of the forthcoming “Pox: An American History.

Immunizations - General Overview


Immunization (vaccination) is a way to trigger your immune system and prevent serious, life-threatening diseases.
See also: Babies and shots

Times Essentials

Recent findings and perspectives on medical research.
A Multitude of Vaccine Benefits, Yet Controversy Persists
REPORTER'S FILE

A Multitude of Vaccine Benefits, Yet Controversy Persists

Vaccinations have been one of the most important health advances in history.
REFERENCE FROM A.D.A.M.

Back to TopAlternative Names

Vaccinations; Immunizations - safety; How immunizations work

Back to TopInformation

HOW IMMUNIZATIONS WORK
When germs such as viruses or bacteria invade your body, your immune system makes special cells. These cells produce antibodies, which help destroy these germs. If all goes well, you get better. The next time your body is exposed to the same infection, your immune system often recognizes it and sets out to destroy it.
Immunizations work in much the same way. They expose you to a very small, very safe amount of a virus or bacteria that has been weakened or killed. Your immune system then learns to recognize and attack the infection if you are exposed to it later in life. As a result, you will either not become ill or have a milder infection. This is a natural way to deal with infectious diseases.
Newborns, babies, and toddlers are constantly being exposed to germs from: their parents and other adults, brothers and sisters, people in stores, and other children in child care. With travel easier than ever, you and your baby can be exposed to diseases from other countries without you knowing.
For a few weeks after they are born, babies will have some protection from their mother because some antibodies are passed from the mother to the baby through the placenta before birth. After this short period of time, these infections can cause severe illnesses in children and adults.
After immunizations were introduced on a wide scale, infections such as tetanus, diphtheria, mumps, measles, pertussis (whooping cough), and polio became rare. Newer immunizations have also decreased certain types of meningitis, pneumonia, and ear infections in children.
Four different types of vaccines are currently available.
  • Attenuated (weakened) live virus is used in the measles, mumps, and rubella (MMR) vaccine and the varicella (chickenpox) vaccine.
  • Killed (inactivated) vaccines are made from a protein or other small pieces taken from a virus or bacteria. These vaccines are safe, even in people with weakened immune systems. Influenza shots are an example of this type of vaccine.
  • Toxoid vaccines contain a toxin or chemical made by the bacteria or virus. They make you immune to the harmful effects of the infection, rather than to the infection itself. Examples are the diphtheria and tetanus vaccines.
  • Biosynthetic vaccines contain human-made substances that the immune system thinks are infectious organisms. The Hib (Haemophilus influenzae type B) conjugate vaccine is one example.
SAFETY OF IMMUNIZATIONS
Many parents are worried that some vaccines are not safe and may harm their baby or young child. They may ask their doctor or nurse to wait, or even refuse to have the vaccine. However, it is important to also think about the risks of not having the vaccination.
Some people believe that the small amount of mercury (called thimerosal) that is a common preservative in multidose vaccines causes autism or ADHD. However, studies have NOT shown this risk to be true.
The American Academy of Pediatrics, and The Institute of Medicine (IOM) agree that no vaccine or component of any vaccine is responsible for the number of children who are currently being diagnosed with autism. They conclude that the benefits of vaccines outweigh the risks.
All of the routine childhood vaccines are available in single-dose forms that do not contain added mercury.
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention website provides further information.
Other risks include:
Some parents are worried that they or their child can get the infection from some vaccines, such as the MMR, chickenpox (varicella), or nasal spray flu vaccines. However, unless you have a weakened immune system, this is very unlikely.
Although very rare, allergic reactions to some part of the vaccines are possible.
Like many medications, there is always the chance that an immunization can cause side effects. However, deciding not to immunize a child also involves risk. The potential benefits from receiving vaccines far outweigh the potential risks.
After immunizations were introduced on a wide scale, infections such as tetanus, diphtheria, mumps, measles, pertussis (whooping cough), and polio became rare. All of these illnesses used to lead to lifetime disabilities, or even death.
Newer immunizations have also decreased certain types of meningitis, pneumonia, and ear infections in children.
Pregnant women may contract an infection that can be very dangerous to their fetus.
IMMUNIZATION SCHEDULE
The recommended immunization schedule is updated at least every 12 months by organizations such as the American Academy of Pediatrics. Consult your primary care provider about specific immunizations for you or your child. The current recommendations are available on the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention(CDC) website. At every doctor visit, ask about the next recommended immunizations.
Immunizations are not only for children. Each year the CDC posts recommended adult immunizations on their website. Go there to learn about tetanus booster shots, the flu shot, hepatitis A and B vaccines, the pneumococcal vaccine, MMR, and immunizations for chickenpox and meningitis.
TRAVELERS
The CDC website (www.cdc.gov) gives travelers detailed information on immunizations and other precautions. Many immunizations should be obtained at least a month before travel.
Remember to take your immunization records with you when you travel internationally. Some countries require this documentation.
See also:
  • Chickenpox - vaccine
  • DTaP immunization (vaccine)
  • H1N1 (swine) influenza vaccine
  • Hepatitis A vaccine
  • Hepatitis B vaccine
  • Hib - vaccine
  • Influenza vaccine
  • MMR - vaccine
  • Pneumococcal conjugate vaccine
  • Pneumococcal polysaccharide vaccine
  • Polio immunization (vaccine)
  • Tdap vaccine
  • Tetanus - vaccine

Back to TopReferences

American Academy of Pediatrics Committee on Infectious Diseases. Recommended immunization schedules for children and adolescents--United States, 2008. Pediatrics . 2008;121(1):219-220.
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Recommended immunization schedule---United States, 2009. MMWR . January 9, 2009;57(53):Q1-Q4.
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Recommended immunization schedules for persons aged 0 through 18 years---United States, 2009. MMWR . January 2, 2009;57(51&52);Q1-Q4.

The Road to ‘Ten Unknowns’


LINE BY LINE

LINE BY LINE

A series on learning the basics of drawing, presented by the artist and author James McMullan. Line By Line begins with installments on line, perspective, proportion and structure, and continues from there, using examples from art history to illuminate specific issues. Pencil and paper recommended.
December 2, 2010, 9:00 PM

The Road to ‘Ten Unknowns’

This is the final installment of this series.
In this last column of the series, I will show you the process of conceptual thinking, sketching, research photos, painting and lettering that led to a finished theater poster, in this case one for Jon Robin Baitz’s play “Ten Unknowns,” which was presented at Lincoln Center Theater in 2001.
Nearly all the steps in creating the poster involved drawing.
In “Ten Unknowns,” Malcolm Raphelson, the central character played by Donald Sutherland, is a figurative artist who had a period of New York success in the late 1940s, just before the rise of Abstract Expressionism as the dominant painting style.
As the play begins, it is now the 1990s, and Malcolm has retreated to a remote Mexican town, dispirited and contemptuous of the current art world. His art dealer, trying to encourage him to exhibit again, has sent him a young man to assist him in his work. Crassly oversimplifying a plot that has two other characters and many dramatic interweaving tensions, the central crux of the story is that Malcolm is in a state of deep creative anxiety, so incapacitating, questions arise regarding recent paintings in the studio. Did Malcolm actually paint the pictures? Or are they the work of the young assistant?
Although this mystery involving the paintings and the relationship between the assistant and Malcolm was intriguing, I felt it was too complicated to represent visually, so I chose to use the more fundamental dilemma of the artist facing painter’s block as the conceptual theme of my poster.
The idea of facing an imaginative void made me think about an actual void, the empty canvas, or an empty sheet of paper, and how that moment of beginning is loaded with possibility and fear. In these first sketches, I am playing with a straightforward depiction of the artist facing the blank canvas, an artist becoming a canvas, an artist painting in the wrong direction and an artist seen through a transparent canvas.