Strollerderby : privacy

What If The State Kept Your Kid's Blood for "Research?"

JeanneSager — Thu, 19 Mar 2009 19:01:00 GMT

I never thought about what happened to the blood sample taken from my daughter in the maternity ward after she was born . . . until now.

Apparently in Texas, blood samples taken routinely from newborns are kept on hand to be used for research. Which doesn't bother me in the slightest.

But a bill making its way through the Texas Legislature will give parents who DON'T want their kids' blood used in research an out; they can ask for the blood sample to be destroyed rather than held onto by the state.

I understand there are huge privacy concerns here. Even though the state assures parents that the baby's names are not connected to the individual samples once the screenings for disease and defects are completed, we've all seen privacy breaches around the nation on supposedly "safe" credit card information, social security numbers and more. Who's to say health information is safe?

But I'm not sure I see the concern here. Is it that kids might be discriminated against if it gets out that they have a certain disease? Or that parents don't want the blood used for research? Because only three parents have actually complained about the issue so far. In one of the top states in terms of population, we're talking ridiculously low numbers of parents here.

Would you care what happens to a small vial of your child's blood?

Image: Maine.gov

Should Cameras be Allowed in School Bathrooms?

Hannah Tennant-Moore — Thu, 05 Feb 2009 20:30:00 GMT

How would you feel about sending your daughter to a school that had cameras installed in the girls’ bathroom? Not good, if you’re anything like Anthony White, who withdrew his 14-year-old daughter from a Wales school after he learned that the girls’ bathroom had been equipped with cameras to prevent “horseplay.”

I can understand White's outrage. The school’s response to his concerns about his daughter’s privacy seems so willfully ignorant as to be creepy. Officials claim that the cameras were installed due to reports that soap and paper towels were being misused (the horror!), and the bathrooms are now much cleaner.

"Toilets can be areas where misbehavior occurs," officials calmly explained to the outraged father. True, but I would argue that hidden cameras in teen girls’ restrooms can also be “areas where misbehavior occurs."

Photo: BBC

Lutheran High School Can Expel Lesbians—And Does

Miriam Axel-Lute — Wed, 28 Jan 2009 23:00:00 GMT

A California appeals court has upheld the right of a private Lutheran high school to expel students based on sexual orientation. Creepy as that sounds, I don't think the court is actually wrong. As long as they don't take one single of penny of my taxpayer money, religious organizations have the freedom to be petty, mean, and discriminatory in their own special ways all day long.

(For clarification: This is a school run by the "Wisconsin Synod" Lutherans, not Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, which is more tolerant.)

The school itself, on the other hand, which ended up in court because it did in fact expel two female students for having a relationship with each other, is wrong in so many ways.

I really can't say the main point much better than Shaun Martin over at California Appellate Report, who writes: "I know that if I taught at a private high school . . . I'd definitely spend my valuable time looking up the myspace pages of all the female students in my class to see if any of them said that they were bisexual or in love with another female student. Yes, and if I were the principal of said high school, and a teacher discovered that two female students had in fact so identified themselves, I'd definitely call them into my office and interrogate them about whether they had a consensual lesbian relationship. . ."

Not to mention the crazy power this gives mean, rumor-mongering teens.

And would the snooping stop with teenagers? If religious schools think they have license to control not only what happens in school, but the private lives of their communities, are parents of young kids in religious elementary schools going to find their kids expelled when it becomes clear that they aren't using birth control (not enough kids! need more tuition!) or don't attend church enough? I know in some dioceses unmarried Catholic school teachers have actually had problems with priestly peeping Toms trying to see whether they are having overnight guests.

According to the AP, the school's lawyer says the school's goal is to "educate based on Christian principles." I realize the world is full of examples to the contrary, but it's always been my understanding that the core Christian principles are supposed to be forgiveness and redemption. Oh well.

I guess the girls who were expelled will have a good chance to practice forgiveness, but I'm guessing there are more and more parents out there who are going to just opt out of schools like this in the first place.

Photo by Made Underground.

More by this author:

Smackdown: Boob Nazis - Is Breastfeeding that Big A Deal? NO!

Cole Gamble — Tue, 27 Jan 2009 15:00:00 GMT

By now you’re probably thinking, “Why are two DUDES arguing the merits of breastfeeding? Where do they get off?!” Well, here’s where I get off (that sounds weird): I offered to tackle this subject with any of the ladies at Strollerderby and they were all too scared. The ladies were too scared to argue about breastfeeding. That’s why, for better or worse, you’ve got Brett and me. What would we know about it? We have children and wives who birthed them, don’t we? We were first hand throughout the breastfeeding process and we did the research right along with our partners. So, I’m gonna say we’re qualified.

My biggest beef with some of the breastfeeding advocates is guilt. I’m not a big fan of guilt as a motivator and I’m even less of a fan of fear tactics. You know, like that pro-breastfeeding commercial that had a heavily pregnant woman thrown from a mechanical bull—equating that with not breastfeeding. I’ve also got no love for bullying, as in the La Leche League member who met my wife at a party and upon learning breastfeeding didn’t work for my wife, ended the conversation, turned on a dime and proceeded to belittle my wife throughout the rest of the party. (This woman is still breastfeeding her 5-year-old. Let that sink in)

But my appeal here won’t be emotional. That’s too easy. I’m gonna give you the facts. The cold hard facts that boob pushers and breast bullies obfuscate or completely deny.

1) Mastitis. An inflammation of the mammary gland occurring in lactating mothers. Nipple can get infected and turn into an abscess that must be surgically removed. Although this can occur in non-breastfeeding women, it’s more likely in breast feeders.

2) The Psychological Benefits are False. The conventional wisdom was breastfeeding led to a more focused, less hyperactive child adept at forming peer relations. However, an exhaustive study recently proved these assumptions wrong. Experts and laymen presumed that the constant physical closeness involved with breastfeeding would do all kinds of psychological wonders. Nope.

3) B-Milk in the Bottle is Just as Good. Some women can’t get their kids to latch. Some women simply don’t like the feeling of breast feeding. No problem, just pump a bit of that magic elixir and give it to junior via bottle. Not only is there no shame in it, but now that we know the physical act of breast feeding comes with no special benefits, the bottle is more acceptable than ever.

4) Where’s the D? This news is hot off the presses: there is insufficient vitamin D in breast milk. A lack of vitamin D can lead to rickets. So, if you breast feed, your kid will become a pirate.

5) You Should Never Do Anything Just Because of Peer Pressure. Like I said above, breast feeding is a choice. If you want to get a little breast milk to your kid but can’t or don’t want the suckling, that’s your business. And if you don’t want to do it at all, you are not abusing your child.

The Other Side and More BF articles:

Smackdown: Breastfeeding -- Why Not?

Smackdown: Damned if You Do, Doomed if you Don't

5 Things That Make You a Breastfeeding Nazi . . . And 5 Things That Don’t

More by this Author:

Should You Take A Risk on Orgasmic Birth? (Orgasmic Birth Video included)

Anti-Abortion Group Up In Arms Over Krispy Kreme Abortion Donuts

"I Ate Little Black Girls for Two Years"

Bizarro News: Flaming Squirrel Sets Elementary School on Fire

4 Ways Birth and Breastfeeding Will Ruin Sex

Recall Alert: Clif Bars (Sez Big Brother Robocall)

Amy Kuras — Wed, 21 Jan 2009 23:30:00 GMT

If you’ve purchased Clif Bars with peanut butter in them, guess what? You may have been exposed to that salmonella-infested peanut butter!

And if, like me, you bought a giant assorted-flavor box of Clif Kid Organic ZBars at Costco a few months ago and have exactly TWO LEFT, one of which is the last of the offending peanut butter flavor, and have been blithely feeding them to your kids thinking “Yay! Quick, healthy yet sweet snack!” you may have gotten the creepy robo-call I got from Costco earlier today.

“THIS IS A COSTCO FOOD SAFETY ALERT” said the mechanical voice. “OUR RECORDS INDICTAE YOU PURCHASED CLIF BARS BETWEEN OCTOBER and DCEMBER OF 2008…” and went on to tell me that the bars has been caught in the peanut butter recall.

First of all, Yikes that Costco is tracking my purchases that intently. I guess I shouldn’t be so naïve – after all, those membership cards let them track purchases and would explain why we get so many coupons for baby wipes, etc. Also, yikes that I got this information two days after Clif Bars voluntarily recalled the products and I hadn’t heard a thing about it (so, um, thanks Big Brother!); and triple yikes that we have consumed almost all bars in the 24-bar pack. Luckily my daughter doesn’t like the peanut butter flavor, but they are usually my pre-gym snack or breakfast on the go, and I know she’s had at minimum a few bites.

Clif Bars, Luna Bars and the Z bars, among others, are included in the recall. Most have sell-by dates ranging between June and November of this year, with a few more in April. A list of recalled codes can be found here. Ours don’t seem to be included, although I have an email in to Clif Bar just to check.

Should Smoking Be Banned In Cars With Kids?

Brett Singer — Wed, 07 Jan 2009 17:00:00 GMT

So. We have third-hand smoke. It's bad. And so on. More fuel for anti-smoking activists. And when someone says, "We're protecting helpless children!" that makes it harder to argue that they are intruding into our personal lives. Right?

A town in Washington State (can't ban smoking in D.C. – Obama's a smoker!) is considering a bill that would ban smoking in cars with children.
From the AP: "A member of the Tobacco Advisory Board of Pierce County, Leonard Sanderson, told The Olympian the proposal would make it a secondary offense, meaning smoking drivers could be ticketed if they were pulled over for another offense, such as speeding."

I was surprised to learn that California, Arkansas, Louisiana and Maine have all made smoking in cars that have kids in them against the law.

Here's the problem. There's no doubt that smoking around children is bad for their health. I get it. But unless you make smoking illegal (not gonna happen), how is this not a privacy violation? You can't drink and drive, but that's all the time, not just around children. Talking on a cell phone while driving has been deemed dangerous, so most states have laws that say you have to wear a headset. Driving without a seatbelt is dangerous, so if you don't wear a seatbelt, you get a ticket. And so on. None of those laws, however, are specific to children.

Does the law apply to your own children? What about other people's kids? Can you smoke in the car when there are no kids there? Now that we know about third-hand smoke, won't the little tykes be at risk anyway if they ride in a car that was, at one time or another, smoked in? And at what age is it safe to be exposed to second-hand smoke?

And how about bacon, or other smoked meats? Those aren't good for children, right? I mean, come on.

(In case you were wondering, most of that was me going off the deep end for comic effect. Thank you. Tip your waitresses.)

I think it would be great if nobody smoked. It's unhealthy, creates enormous costs for health insurers as those smokers age, and there's the second-hand, third-hand, and fourth-hand (just wait, it'll happen) smoke to contend with. It's a bad habit. But it's still legal. Until it isn't, this seems like an unreasonable law, like the one about smokers not being allowed foster children (which, considering that some kids are writing letters to woo potential foster parents, seems like an unfair restriction).

What do you think? Is this too much of an invasion of privacy? Or does it not matter if it's to "protect our children"?

Source: AP via nwsource.com

Image: Church Times

On Jett Travolta, Howard Stern Gets It Right

Grieving Chinese Parents Not Allowed To Sue

They Say -- Kids Who Skip Breakfast and Hate Mom Have Sex Sooner

They Say -- Vaccines Work

Newbery Winners Decrease in Diversity in Recent Years

Kid Woos Prospective Foster Parents With Letters

TV Producer Seeking Urban Home Birth to Film

Miriam Axel-Lute — Mon, 29 Dec 2008 21:28:00 GMT

Producer Zach Marion is looking for someone planning have a home birth and due in January or early February to add to the birth stories in an upcoming Discovery Health Network show promoting midwifery and home birth.

Since the two already on board involve organic coffee growers in Hawaii and a couple planning to erect a "birth teepee" in Utah, he suggests that maybe a more urban birth setting would round out the trio.

Unsure about having a film crew at your birth? (I hope, frankly, that you are at least a little unsure.) Marion knows strangers can be disruptive but says in filming dozens of births for "House of Babies," he and his crew have become practiced at fading into the background and becoming "a fly on the wall." Not to mention blurring out the bits network TV doesn't want to show in high-def.

So if you're due at the right time and want to do your part for home birth awareness (especially, say I, if you are not the "stereotypical" home birth mom), give Marion a ring. It'll mean dad won't need to worry about the camcorder.

Photo by mil8, via Flickr.

More by this author:

Should Students Attend Parent-Teacher Meetings?

Hannah Tennant-Moore — Mon, 29 Dec 2008 18:30:00 GMT

In an effort to boost participation in parent-teacher meetings, many schools have started including an unlikely facilitator in the talks: the student. According to The New York Times, attendance at parent-teacher meetings at a middle school outside Chicago increased sevenfold after administrators started letting students sit in on the conferences. The principal speculated that parents from low-income and immigrant families are more likely to attend a discussion with their child and her teacher than a traditional meeting in which they listen politely to a 15-minute teacher monologue. I would guess that parents are also more likely to attend conferences when they don’t have to pay for childcare.

Candidly discussing your child’s performance and challenges in front of him may seem like a joke of a conference (and doubtless it sometimes is), but, if led well, such a conference does have the potential to improve more than just attendance. Allowing the student to present her own academic successes and concerns makes kids feel in charge of their learning process. As one parent put it, “My daughter is learning that the teacher is not responsible for her learning. Cierra knows that she is responsible for her own success.”

On the other hand, parent-teacher conferences can be vital times for both parent and teacher to fill each other in on important behavioral concerns that neither party would be comfortable discussing in front of the student—perhaps your child is having trouble sleeping, for instance, affecting her engagement in the classroom. To address this need for privacy, some schools offer parents the opportunity for closed parent-teacher meetings by appointment. Every school opting for a student-inclusive meeting should—quite clearly and vocally—offer parents this option.

Photo: New York Times

Big Brother is Watching You[r Kid] On the School Bus

Karen Murphy — Mon, 08 Oct 2007 11:32:00 GMT

You decide—good idea gone awry, or just good idea? Apparently the new accessory on school buses is a video camera, recording your kid's every nose-picking moment.

The idea is to provide an objective record when there's a bus-related dispute. Hey! Did the bus driver haul off and whack my kid for no reason like my kid says, or does my kid have a bone to pick with the driver because he made him keep his head inside the window and embarrassed him in front of everyone? Who's telling the truth? The camera will know!

And the cameras supposedly deter bullying, too. Which would have saved my daughter's birthday cake from having been consumed by the ~~fat piglike girl~~ evidently very hungry girl who extorted it from her last year, thus providing life-long birthday cake-related scars.

And the ACLU is on board with the idea, too, stating that school buses aren't a place where kids would normally expect privacy.

So how come I don't like it?

Are Parents Irresponsible for Writing About Their Kids?

Rachael Brownell (Redsy) — Sat, 06 Oct 2007 16:38:00 GMT

Whit is not only a snarktastic genius over at Famecrawler, he also gives good blog over at Dadcentric. Recently, he explored the issues parents face when they choose to write publicly about the lives of their children. As we've recently seen, once pictures and stories enter the public sphere, all hell can break loose.

Whit rightly points out that sometimes we think we corner the market on exploiting our experiences as parents under the aegis of artistic expression, when in fact this has been going on forever. Look at the story of Christopher Robin...

AA Milne wrote the books of Pooh and used his own son as the model for Christopher Robin.. What follows from there is an unhappy ending, but I'll let Whit tell it....

But the bottom line is we aren't the first group of parents faced with judgment calls about what level of privacy and protection to grant our children in service to the art of blogging our lives (their lives). At what point does this become merely exploitation? At what point do we no longer own their story?

Kids, the Internet, and the End of Privacy

MetroDad — Tue, 06 Feb 2007 14:44:00 GMT

Thanks to NBC's Dateline and a host of other media outlets, most of us parents are well-versed in the predatory dangers of MySpace and other social networking sites. We know we should monitor our kids' internet usage and, for the most part, we do everything possible to keep them safe and secure as they peruse the deep netherlands of the internet.

But do all of you know how much of your children's lives that they may be putting on the internet themselves?

This week's New York Magazine has a fascinating story discussing the younger generation's increasing propensity to reveal great aspects of their private lives on the Internet. It's not uncommon these days for a young person to have their own blog, their own MySpace/Facebook page, a flickr account, and their own Vimeo diary site. Increasingly, the older generation is looking on with alarm and misapprehension not seen since the early days of rock and roll. Clearly, the future belongs to the uninhibited.

As an older person with his own blog, I greatly enjoy the sense of community that I've found on the internet, particularly among fellow parents my age. At the same time, I'm more than a little shocked at the sheer openess with which today's younger generation reveal themselves online. I won't say that I'm against it. I think we're entering new frontiers of social interaction and the eventual development of it all will be determined by people much younger than me.

In essence, I guess I'm just saying that this rock and roll stuff sure is loud. But you know what? I kind of like it. What do you think?