Avoid Juice In Bottle At Bedtime
I made a mistake! Can you believe it?
Two months ago I advised the parents of a soon-to-be 3-year-old that it was all right to let the child have a bottle at nap time and bedtime if, and only if, the bottle was filled with either water or - and this is how I put it - unsweetened fruit juice.
Silly me. As several pediatricians and pediatric dentists have since pointed out (all quite politely, mind you,) there is no such thing as an unsweetened fruit juice. All fruit juice contains fructose, which is a sugar. Babies and/or toddlers should not be allowed to go to bed with bottles containing milk or sugar-sweetened liquids because they often fall asleep with the nipples in their mouths. The liquids in question, when they come into prolonged contact with a youngster’s teeth, are quite likely to cause tooth decay. If the bottle at bedtime is a nightly thing, the decay can become quite serious. I had consulted with a pediatrician about the question, and he nixed bottles containing, as he put it, “milk or any sweetened beverage.” It simply slipped my mind that fruit juices were pre-sweetened by Mother Nature.
Several other readers took me to task over the same column, but for a different reason. They don’t like the idea of giving a 3-year-old a bottle under any circumstances. I don’t either, to tell the truth, but I also believe parents should choose their bottles carefully. The child in question only requested the bottle at nap and bedtimes. This is no more serious than a 3-year-old who sucks his thumb or nuzzles a “blankie” to help himself fall asleep. The chances of this child still wanting a bottle at bedtime in a year are quite slim. On the other hand, if his parents fight with him about the bottle, there’s no telling when he’ll get his “fill” of it.
Then there’s the matter of a column I wrote several weeks ago in which I advised the parents of a 15-year-old who was smoking with her friends to give thanks for a daughter who was well-behaved, did well in school and chose decent friends (albeit ones who smoked). I wrote, “If the only thing your daughter does to disappoint you during her teen years is smoke, you are fortunate indeed.”
One reader pointed out that tobacco is a “gateway drug,” leading to use of alcohol, marijuana and other drugs. Well, that’s both true and not true. True that teens who smoke cigarettes are more likely to use other drugs, but not all teens who smoke go on to use “harder” drugs. Whereas cigarette smoking may be a factor in the latter situation, it is not the sole factor.
“Teenagers need to be given clear messages that tobacco use is harmful,” this same reader wrote. Yes, I agree, and the parents in question - both non-smokers - had given themselves blue-in-the-face syndrome over the problem. The daughter - who made no attempt to hide her smoking - agreed it was a bad habit, but smoked anyway. This same reader implied I thought teen-age smoking was no big deal. No, I think it’s a big deal, but I also think that if parents make big deals out of things they can’t change, big deals are likely to become even bigger. Another reader wrote her local paper complaining I had said there was “nothing parents can do to stop a child from smoking.” No, I didn’t say that. I said if parents had done all they could reasonably do to get their daughter to stop, they should accept that this was something they could not change.
In short, should the parents go to war? Because once they throw down the gauntlet, war it will certainly be. Yes, I think smoking is a big deal, but I happen to think lying and sneaking are even bigger deals. Given the choice between having a good relationship with a child who smokes or a deteriorating relationship with a child who still smokes, but swears she doesn’t, I’ll take the good relationship any day.
The following fields overflowed: CREDIT = John Rosemond The Charlotte Observer