Saffron

Aw, that's making me want one too! ;-) xx MaryJ Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I had my bottle until i was 7. it was purely a > comfort thing. I remember coming in from school > and running to get my bottle. i still think of > bottles quite fondly and sometimes i think of > stealing my little girls one as it looks so comfy > but i have been strong and not gone back to the > bottle yet.... > > It did me absolutely no harm than i can see other > than a ribbing now and then from my family about > how old i was when i gave up. > > don't worry your little one will loose interest at > some stage as long as they can take other drinks > from a cup there is nothing to worry about.

And much more interesting than the Lounge thread too!

civilservant Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > DG2, I did point out that the NHS DOES treat > everyone who turns up. Sorry, was that in the Lounge thread? I missed that here. I just read the bit here where you said Botox users shouldn't expect the public purse (I was reading that as the NHS) to sort them out. Apologies if I misunderstood. > But remember that there is > a finite pot of resource, so that time and money > spent on treating a Botox victim in A&E is time > and money that won't be spent on you or your > child. > But then surely it's obvious why this route becomes a slippery slope. Yes, anyone who comes to A&E having done something silly to themselves is taking resources that would go to others who are more "worthy"... oh, wait, hang on a minute... that's exactly the point: The NHS doesn't apply a sliding scale of morality to patching up people! > I also added that prevention is increasingly > important: the thinking is that if you deal with > the problem at its source, you won't incur the > increased cost of treatment etc. later. I get what you're saying about prevention, but you can't prevent the human condition. People are going to do silly, sometimes stupid things to themselves, because they're only human. We're all prone to human frailties in one sense or another. Everyone has a vice, and everyone has accidents. Perhaps what's needed is tighter control on the cosmetics industry in the UK, but that doesn't mean that the entire industry is "snake oil", or that people who want to pursue a little consmetic intervention are somehow less worthy than those who don't. Although, of course, opinions do differ.

dulwichgirl2 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > CS, I think Saffron's point, with which I agree, > is that it is difficult if the NHS starts > attributing "blame" to the appearance of or extent > of certain conditions. Either the nHS treats > everyone who turns up (ie regardless of > contributory negligence) or it doesn't. Yor own > first post actually made the same point when one > of your arguments was that treating voluntarily > created Botox problems is stretching the NHS which > already has enough to do dealing with the diseases > caused or exacerbated by other voluntary behaviour > patterns such as smoking or drinking. Yes, dulwichgirl2, that's the point. Civilservant implied that people who use Botox and then develop problems shouldn't expect the NHS to sort them out. I used allergy to Botox as an example, because there is no inherent bias in it. Anyone can develop an allergy at any time. Compare this to smoking and for example lung disease. It isn't just that smoking increases the risk of lung disease. Smoking actually causes lung disease. And the fact that people are offered help to quit, turn the help down, and then get NHS treatment for lung disease anyway just shows my point that the NHS fuctions without attributing blame. So, actually, people CAN expect that the NHS will provide a minial level of medical support, should they encounter a medical problem caused by Botox. (Drooping eyelid is not a medical problem, btw. I'm talking about health problems.) Indeed taking the issue further, if someone feels that s/he has developed an addiction to cosmetic treatments which is causing him/her serious pychological problems, then that person could probably also expect to receive psychological or psychiatric treatment through the NHS. Of course some people aren't going to be comfortable with that aspect of the NHS. Nevertheless individuals can expect that the NHS will provide treatment, and indeed the NHS does so.

Addiction and Botox are not two separate issues, if someone becomes addicted to Botox. The OP seemed to be asking why Botox perhaps has a stigma that other treatments do not, for example face creams or dentistry. So in reply, I put forward that perhaps it's the perceived association with addiction to cosmetic treatments which causes some people to feel uneasy about it's use. Not everyone who has a cosmetic treatment like Botox is addicted to cosmetic treatments. I was not implying such. However, some people do become addicted to cosmetic treatments. It adds an additional angle to the topic, but I don't see that as confusing the matter so long as we're not comparing Botox addicts to occasional Botox devotees (which I was very clear about in a previous post above).

Yes, good point, furley-yap: There are different ways to prioritise parents without excluding others. I'm very curious to hear if the outreach worker gets back to you with more info. Thanks, Inkmaiden for the additional links for Lewisham. xx

It's definitely for comfort, I agree. My daughter spat out her soother at 5 months and never looked back. She loves the warm bottle for comfort, and now it's just habit too I suppose. On a quiet day at home, she has so many bottles that we cut them 30% milk to 70% water, and she doesn't even mind. Curiously she doesn't walk around with them in her mouth. She either drinks them or puts them down where she's playing. She doesn't have a "lovey" and plays with all her toys and blankets pretty evenly. Maybe the bottle is her lovey? I also have a hypothsis that she doesn't like sippy cups/soothers because of the shape of her mouth. I've known from early on when we had issues with the latch in b/fing that she has a high palate and short tongue. This is a variation on normal which doesn't cause her any problems. I just wonder if it's why she prefers a bottle to sippy cup or beaker? (She also still quite likes a bit of booby when she's tired or upset!)

civilservant Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > ...if people want to > botox/liposuction/get breast implants, then fine. > So long as they don't then expect the public purse > to sort them out if things go wrong - the public > purse has enough to do sorting out the > consequences of people who eat/drink/smoke too > much. > > But what about someone who doesn't smoke or drink alcohol or other drugs, and who eats well and exercises but who just wants to try a little Botox on a deep wrinkle that's been bothering him/her for a while... Then imagine this person has a severe allergic reaction (rare but possible, and btw you can also have a severe reaction to creams not just injections) to a properly applied Botox injection under the supervision of a licensed medical doctor. This person wouldn't get NHS treatment, but a chronic alcoholic who smoked his/her whole life, took drugs, never exercised, and ate rubbish could expect to be treated? I'm working at extremes here, but you can see the slippery slope it creates. The NHS sorts people out from all kinds of crazy stuff they do to themselves. It's in their foundational remit. It was accepted that this would be the case when the NHS was founded.

If you find anything that works, I'd LOVE to know. My 2.5 yo still likes a warm bottle. She can drink from a plain cup but hates sippy cups of all varieties. I figured she'd just give up on her own eventually (like when she's 10 maybe?!).

Ice cream vans will be delivering directly to your doorstep.

Try the maternity range from Asos http://www.asos.com/Women/Maternity/Cat/pgecategory.aspx?cid=5813 ? I bought lots of nice things from there a few years ago. Not frumpy, and prices are decent. Hubbie splashed out and bought me some really nice jeans from Pretty Pregnant on North Cross Road, which I wore for ages postpartum too. When you're choosing tops, don't forget to think about possibly breastfeeding. I had a couple a very pretty maternity tops that I would still have worn postpartum, but they were impossible to breastfeed in, doh!

Southwark pages link here: http://www.cityoflondon.gov.uk/services/environment-and-planning/waste-and-recycling/household-waste-and-recycling/Pages/Hazardous-Waste.aspx "The City of London operates a Household Hazardous Waste Collection and Disposal Service (HWCDS) on behalf of 31 of the 32 London Boroughs (the exception being the London Borough of Hillingdon) and the City of London. For residents of all London boroughs (with the exception of Hillingdon) and the City of London please follow the information below. Please be aware that we do not collect paint from the LB of Haringey." Also, specifically here: http://www.cityoflondon.gov.uk/services/environment-and-planning/Documents/chemical-information-sheet.pdf The following items are acceptable for collection: ?? Inorganic Solids, Liquids and Gases (i.e. Sulphate Powders, Carbon Dioxide, Antifreeze) ?? Organic Solids and Solvents (i.e. White Spirit, Paint, Petrol, Diesel, Paraffin) ?? Organic Peroxides (i.e. Adhesive Activators / Hardeners) ?? Acids (i.e. Toilet Cleaners, Battery Acid) ?? Alkalis (i.e. Bleach, Hydroxide Solutions, Ammonia) ?? Cyanides (i.e. Old Rat Poisons) ?? Water or Air Reactive Chemicals (i.e. Sodium. Potassium, Carbides) ?? Oxidising Agents (i.e. Chlorate Weed Killers, Nitrate Fertilisers) ?? Reducing Agents (i.e. Sulphites, Dylon Net Curtain Whiting Agent) ?? Pesticides (i.e. Garden Chemicals ?C Liquid and Solid) ?? Pharmaceuticals (i.e. Tablets and Medicine ?C We DO NOT collect Clinical Waste)

Is it oil- or water-based paint? Interesting info here: http://tlc.howstuffworks.com/home/how-to-dispose-of-paint1.htm

http://www.southwark.gov.uk/info/524/refuse_collections/1669/hazardous_waste/1

I was also pleasantly surprised at how attractive the Southwark Register office is. Mr Saff and I were married there. We looked at the Hornimal too, but alas they weren't offering winter ceremonies (we were married in Jan). So be sure you check the dates available, as some venues are limited. Also look at Dulwich Picture Gallery.

Plan Toys wooden pirate ship and characters. Not sure if the toyshop on LL carries these? You can definitely order online. I've seen them on Amazon. My friends' boys have one. It seems very sturdy.

Could it be that some people are averse to injectable treatments simply because of their invasive nature? Although arguably self-tanners and nanoengineered wrinkle creams are blurring the line over "invasive". Then again, dentistry can be very invasive. However, people don't usually become addicted to having their teeth reset. So maybe it's perceived association of Botox-style treatments with addiction to cosmetic interventions that is the real issue for some people? Also, when people say cosmetic interventions look bad or wrong, what they should really say is that poorly contrived cosmetic interventions look rubbish. When someone has had a really good cosmetic treatment or surgery, you wouldn't even know they had had "work" done if you bumped into them on the street. Celebrity addicts simply cannot be compared to the everyday gal (or bloke) on the street who had a little nip and tuck along the way. It would be like comparing someone who has the occasional tablet of codeine to someone who is addicted to prescription painkillers. I'm very much in the live and let live camp on cosmetic treatments. And as for growing old gracefully, doesn't that included attitudes not just looks? Someone who grows old "gracefully" by not using any make-up, hair dye etc, and then acts in a judgemental way towards people who make other choices about growing old, is possibly not growing old very gracefully in his/her attitudes. We're all different. I think there's room for variety between individuals and also within ourselves. At one time in our lives, a thing that seemed useful may at another time seem not so. Hey if you can come up with a way to solve internal conflicts in 10 min, you can sell your self-help secrets to the lunchtime crowd at Boots, right next to the botox service. ;-)

Moos, I like the bit about the "mirror of metaphor". I'm going to print that out and put it on my desk!

Good things also happened when Gods intervened in mortal scenarios. The Greco-Roman gods had human attributes, and were therefore prone to human frailties, emotive and ethical dilemmas. Which returns me to the point I made previously: Technology may change, but humans it seems will always have moral struggles. So even if you're an Anabaptist Amish/Mennonite who shuns technology, you're still going to have ethical struggles. It's part of the human condition. I would even go so far as to say that "monsters" can be created within ourselves through our responses to the world, or by our mishappen perceptions or unfair judgements of others.

Actually the mechanism of Botox and its possible side effects are very well characterised in the scientific literature. It's been in use therapeutically to treat muscular disorders for over 30 years. The main concerns with its use, whether cosmetic or medical, are (a) is the product properly produced and bottled to prevent impuraties and ensure correct concentration, and (b) is the person injecting it competent to do so and prepared to recognise and treat possible side effects.

oimissus Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > espolea - if you get hold of the latest Let's Go > brochure (libraries normally have it) you should > be able to find groups that are targeted towards > professional child carers (rather than parents) so > your nanny should be able to meet other nannies > and childminders in the area. Is the "Let's Go" brochure just for Southwark? (I'm in Lewisham. Does anyone know if Lewisham has something similar?)

sunbob Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I think that taking a child to a group would only > be easy if you then sit drinking tea and leave > them to it. If I were to employ a nanny or > childminder I would certainly want them to take my > children to groups to have the stimulation of > interaction with other children and adults. I want that from a nanny too. On the days a week my toddler has a nanny, I encourage the nanny to take her out to groups and other activities. She's a very sociable child and likes that type of interaction. If some groups prioritise parents over childcare providers, I think it's understandable given our current economic climate. In the case of the OP, it's a shame if your nanny was enjoying a specific group and now can't go, but there are lots of other free and low cost activities available. If you feel very strongly about equal access, maybe it's something to take up with local government if you're civically inclined?

Look at Myriad Toys website for lots of beautiful toys and puzzles, traditional just not silver. xx

tired Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > and just for the record, I said "over SSP", ie > that SSP is payable but a whole day's salary for > being off is discretionary. > > Tired, thanks for coming back to clarify. It wasn't initally clear whether you were saying "over" in the sense of "regarding" SSP in general, or "over" in the sense of "above" a required minimun.

I don't think that genetic engineering will automatically be available only to the weathly. Perhaps initially, yes. But as this type of engineering is relatively new, there will of course be room for improvement. The process can be streamlined and made more readily available. Take the case of IVF in Africa. Increasing demand for this expensive practice meant there was a market, but many of those who wanted it couldn't afford it. However, in recent years the IVF process has been streamlined and made more affordable, so it could reach this market. I don't see a reason to think that genetic technology would be any different. Whether or not one sees that as an ethical issue is very much dependant on one's point of view. The technology itself --the ability to manipulate genes-- is not inherently evil. Its morality (or lack thereof) will be derived through its usage by humans. Technology may change, but humans it seems will always have moral struggles. Should we on that basis conceed to condemn and cease all technological advances? Personally I don't think so, but others will disagree. Perhaps it's reconciling those differences in a fair and harmonious way that is itself the most profound moral challenge?