So very angry right now!!

Jojo_the_Tightfisted

Gingham_R wrote: »

:kisses3: Thank you! I'm sorry for confusing things.

I think you're right. I struggle on here, and always have without the use of non verbal cues. I have terrible trouble on conference calls too and try to avoid them now, even going as far as travelling 100 miles to go to a meeting rather than deal with it on the phone.

Also - nightmare child - yes. I admit to that one too!

Glad that's sorted, then!

Out of interest, how do you get assessed for adult ADHD?

Gingham_R

you need a referral from a GP to a psychiatrist with a specialist interest in adult ADHD. There aren't that many declaring an interest in this country unfortunately but aadduk.com has a list.

Gingham_R

joeblack066 wrote: »

Because I am well aware that asthma can be fatal, this will undoubtedly be covered in the lesson, and I want her to be prepared for that discussion. I don't think thats being overprotective.

It's not overprotective. It's what any good mother would do.

I have brittle asthma. I can laugh about the sex jokes and the wheezy jokes with the best of them but, if I'd had it badly as a child, I would not have wanted to find out that it was potentially fatal by hearing it in a biology lesson.

meritaten

Gingham_R wrote: »

It's not overprotective. It's what any good mother would do.

I have brittle asthma. I can laugh about the sex jokes and the wheezy jokes with the best of them but, if I'd had it badly as a child, I would not have wanted to find out that it was potentially fatal by hearing it in a biology lesson.

Yes - my son had it too - his consultants and GP were always careful not to let him know it could be fatal - I wouldnt have wanted him to hear that in a biology lesson!
why is biology turning into pre-med? why do they think giving gory details of disease and potentialy fatal conditions 'biology'?
sorry - I think the curriculum has gone mad!
teach the basics - let the diseases etc be taught at medical school!

mrcow

meritaten wrote: »

Yes - my son had it too - his consultants and GP were always careful not to let him know it could be fatal - I wouldnt have wanted him to hear that in a biology lesson!
why is biology turning into pre-med? why do they think giving gory details of disease and potentialy fatal conditions 'biology'?
sorry - I think the curriculum has gone mad!
teach the basics - let the diseases etc be taught at medical school!

Not everyone goes to med school though.

Are you seriously suggesting that people shouldn't learn about e.g. cardiovascular disease......you know.....the biggest killer out there? What's the point of getting an education if you're not going to learn something useful. Learning what cancer is is much more useful to most than learning about e.g. life in a Roman forum.

Jojo_the_Tightfisted

mrcow wrote: »

Not everyone goes to med school though.

Are you seriously suggesting that people shouldn't learn about e.g. cardiovascular disease......you know.....the biggest killer out there? What's the point of getting an education if you're not going to learn something useful. Learning what cancer is is much more useful to most than learning about e.g. life in a Roman forum.

I agree with this.

DD is undergoing tests for something that kills quite a few people, often when teenagers.

She had to know that it can be fatal - as finding it out in class or worse, via Google - wouldn't be very nice. So she knows what it is, and the geneticist was wonderful when I asked the question I knew was eating away at the back of her mind for her since she has been having scans and whatnots on her heart and tests and more scans and traces and checks and different referrals;


I said the question I think she is wondering, but won't admit it, is 'Am I going to drop dead?'.


The geneticist turned to her, said that it can happen to some people with it, explained how the blood vessels can rupture, but that they take ages and ages and ages to do it, and they spend years getting bigger and bigger in the meantime, which can be seen on scans. The people who drop dead are the ones who haven't been seen, haven't been scanned regularly, and nobody knows they have the condition until it's too late. But she's been scanned and there is nothing wrong with her heart, she will be scanned regularly and even if something did show up in the future, they will be able to do something about it because they would know about it early.

So I thought that was a really good way of telling her the truth without sugarcoating it or pretending it isn't there.


Perhaps the OP's daughter would benefit from a bit of truth, rather than being shielded? After all, the fact that asthma is sometimes fatal can be found from typing 'can you die from asthma?' or entering 'brittle asthma' into the search box. Truth from the start prevents the shock. Especially as keeping it secret might be taken as proof it is going to happen to her.

meritaten

because - children are going to school to learn the basics. they need to learn how to read and write and add up. if they want to learn about more than that - then that is what colleges and universities are for.
the fact that children are leaving school these days with lower levels of literacy - could be because they are not given enough time to learn.
kids these days are not given enough time to learn! its assumed that because teacher has covered one topic in a lesson - the kids learned it! NOT TRUE! not for all kids! the curriculum is such that topics are skimmed over. and teachers assume that ALL kids learned from it!
The curriculum is too wide ranging and often has nothing to do with learning. how on earth does a 'chinese banquet' has anything to do with learning the basic 3Rs? yet that is what my 4 yr old did in nursery last week.

Person_one

meritaten wrote: »

because - children are going to school to learn the basics. they need to learn how to read and write and add up. if they want to learn about more than that - then that is what colleges and universities are for.

Please be joking.

mrcow

meritaten wrote: »

because - children are going to school to learn the basics. they need to learn how to read and write and add up. if they want to learn about more than that - then that is what colleges and universities are for.

Read and write and that's it?
Good grief....most kids learn how to do that by the age of 6.

Do you want them learning nothing of value in the proceeding 10 years? Thanks but no thanks. I don't want my kids growing up in the bubble of ignorance that you're advocating. There is a world of knowledge out there and the more varied their learning, the better.

As for moaning about the "curriculum now". I went to school in the 1980s and we learnt about diabetes and heart disease back then too. Why? Because it's both important and relevant.

milliebear00001

meritaten wrote: »

because - children are going to school to learn the basics. they need to learn how to read and write and add up. if they want to learn about more than that - then that is what colleges and universities are for.
the fact that children are leaving school these days with lower levels of literacy - could be because they are not given enough time to learn.
kids these days are not given enough time to learn! its assumed that because teacher has covered one topic in a lesson - the kids learned it! NOT TRUE! not for all kids! the curriculum is such that topics are skimmed over. and teachers assume that ALL kids learned from it!
The curriculum is too wide ranging and often has nothing to do with learning. how on earth does a 'chinese banquet' has anything to do with learning the basic 3Rs? yet that is what my 4 yr old did in nursery last week.

I'm not sure how you could know, as under your system no schoolchild would study history, but isn't that pretty much what was taught in Victorian times?

The assumptions contained in this post are truly breathtaking.