1. Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

How would you handle this?

Discussion in 'General Baptist Discussions' started by abcgrad94, Dec 18, 2007.

  1. abcgrad94

    abcgrad94 Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 12, 2007
    Messages:
    5,533
    Ratings:
    +0
    How would your church handle a situation where parents "send" their kids to your church, and the kids end up infecting the other children with headlice? What if the parents had been told about the problem *more than once*, but they don't do anything about it? Even if the kids are treated at school or church, their homelife guarantees re-infection. Social services does nothing. Do you keep them out of church or let them stay and "hope for the best.?"
     
  2. Sopranette

    Sopranette New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 24, 2006
    Messages:
    1,828
    Ratings:
    +0
    Maybe discreetly take the parents aside and tell them? I've heard WD40 is a good way to kill head lice, plus, in my ever so humble opinion, it smells good. I would still allow the children to attend church, head lice and all. If the kids are old enough, they can apply it themselves. Definitely don't seperate them and embarrass them in front of the other kids. Why are the parents sending their kids to church, but not attending themselves? It's sad, very sad.

    love,

    Sopranette
     
    #2 Sopranette, Dec 18, 2007
    Last edited by a moderator: Dec 18, 2007
  3. ccrobinson

    ccrobinson New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 12, 2005
    Messages:
    4,459
    Ratings:
    +0
    Didn't you read what was said? The parents have been told more than once about this problem. Telling them again will accomplish nothing.

    Since the irresponsible parents won't act, the church leadership must act because there are other children to consider. The irresponsible parents should be told that their children can't come to church until the head lice problem is resolved.

    I'm responsible for my children's safety and if they can't be safe from getting head lice at church due solely to the irresponsibility of other parents, and the church won't do anything about it, then I will do something and my children and I will be attending another church.

    It's not unreasonable to expect parents to do what's necessary to make sure that their kids don't have head lice.
     
  4. Sopranette

    Sopranette New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 24, 2006
    Messages:
    1,828
    Ratings:
    +0
    I would do the opposite of whatever cc suggests.

    love,

    Sopranette
     
  5. rbell

    rbell Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2006
    Messages:
    11,103
    Ratings:
    +0
    Please, please don't do this. WD-40 is ineffective on lice & nits, and it's not at all safe for topical application.

    http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/cgi/content/full/110/3/638


    No need to outright embarass them, I'll agree. But at some point, the concept of "public health" supplants what the kids want. A couple of good head lice infestations that could have been prevented....and you won't have a Children's department.

    Isn't that a bit childish?
     
  6. Benjamin

    Benjamin Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 6, 2004
    Messages:
    5,171
    Ratings:
    +494
    I'd get a hand full of head lice killing powder and as soon as I see them come in walk up and say, "glad to see ya" with the old head rub. :laugh:

    PS. I got sick once from inhaling too much WD40 while working under a car!
     
    #6 Benjamin, Dec 18, 2007
    Last edited by a moderator: Dec 18, 2007
  7. canadyjd

    canadyjd New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 13, 2005
    Messages:
    3,896
    Ratings:
    +0
    Exactly right:thumbs:

    peace to you:praying:
     
  8. SBCPreacher

    SBCPreacher Active Member

    Joined:
    May 30, 2006
    Messages:
    2,764
    Ratings:
    +0
    Faith:
    Baptist
    I agree. We (the church leadership) have the responsibility to take care of all the children. Just like a child should not be in the nursery or in Sunday School when they're running a fever, they should not be there with lice.

    A parent who is told that their child has lice and refuses to take care of it or allows other to be infected is irresponsible at best, and should be ashamed of themselves.
     
  9. annsni

    annsni Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    May 30, 2006
    Messages:
    20,493
    Ratings:
    +1,013
    I know it's hard because it sounds like those kids NEED to be at church but we also do need to decide what is best for the WHOLE of the congregation. I would not want my children to be in a place where they can get that sort of infestation especially since my son and daughter are very sensitive to different products and having to use any lice product would cause my children to have HORRIBLE, blistering reactions. I'd have to go the natural route which, while effective, is even more of a hassle.

    Unfortunately, it would have to be that the parents are spoken to and asked that the children not be brought to church until they are free from lice. If they do come and are checked and found to have lice, they would be pulled from the classroom and the parents would be called.

    As I said, it's sad because these kids NEED to be at church but would you also allow them to come if they had the flu? Or chicken pox? It's the same sort of thing. Public health.
     
  10. PastorSBC1303

    PastorSBC1303 Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 21, 2003
    Messages:
    15,125
    Ratings:
    +0
    If you are supposedly ignoring ccr and myself, then how do you know that he has suggested anything?????

    As to the OP, I agree with the advice of ccrob and others. It is a tough situation to be in, but someone has to look out for the kids.
     
  11. preachinjesus

    preachinjesus Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 9, 2004
    Messages:
    7,406
    Ratings:
    +182
    Quarantine! ;)

    Actually it probably is a tough situation. I don't know what I'd do, but I don't work with kids...so here's that ball back :D
     
  12. Sopranette

    Sopranette New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 24, 2006
    Messages:
    1,828
    Ratings:
    +0
    I never said inhale the stuff. It just might be less embarrassing for the child if you were to give him a can of WD40 and whisper to him what to do, than just hand him a box of Rid-X in front of the other kids. Or you could baptism him and give him a shampoo at the same time.

    love,

    Sopranette
     
  13. canadyjd

    canadyjd New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 13, 2005
    Messages:
    3,896
    Ratings:
    +0
    You would really give a kid a can of WD40, tell him to go to the bathroom and spray it all over his hair, making sure he rubs it in well,...? Really!!!!???? And the other kids wouldn't notice the smell of the WD40 and the oil running down his cheeks? And ole Mr. Smith wouldn't break his hip from slipping on the oily bathroom floor (or wherever else you sent him) because someone turned a kid loose with a can of WD40? WOW!!!

    Or..... We could just do the adult thing; go to the parents and tell them the kids can't come to church until they are free from the head lice.

    peace to you:praying:
     
    #13 canadyjd, Dec 18, 2007
    Last edited by a moderator: Dec 18, 2007
  14. Sopranette

    Sopranette New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 24, 2006
    Messages:
    1,828
    Ratings:
    +0
    The parents don't seem to care either way. Would you really turn anyone away for having an illness, especially someone suffering from obvious neglect? Just how would that child think of church when he becomes an adult? If they turned their back on him in a time of need, then I'm guessing he'll turn his back on the church when they need him. I know I wouldn't go somewhere where I'll obviously be segregated and ridiculed.

    love,

    Sopranette
     
  15. donnA

    donnA New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2000
    Messages:
    23,354
    Ratings:
    +0
    I agree.
    I worked with children for years, and we never had a lice problem, but other problems, and after much thought and prayer and seeking the pastors counsil the parents were told if things did not change the kids could not come back. I hate to keep anyone away from church, but their parents are irresponsible, and could cause other children to be infected. You can not treat it yourself, as this is considered medical. You must be responsible for the other children present and their health and welfare.

    Do not EVER use any product on a child that was not made for the condition you think you are treating, thats is it's own kind of irresponsibility, not ot mention could be dangerous, and leave a church legally liable. If your going to treat lice, buy a product meant for lice.
     
  16. donnA

    donnA New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2000
    Messages:
    23,354
    Ratings:
    +0
    No ones talking about ridicule. But being responsible for the children in the churches care. And if that means someone can not attend in order to keep others safe, then so be it. As for the rest of your post, God will take card of it His way.
     
  17. Sopranette

    Sopranette New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 24, 2006
    Messages:
    1,828
    Ratings:
    +0
    Kids always seem to pick on those who can not defend themselves. If someone is just a little different, they automatically pick him out. Kids are cruel this way. This is not news. I would still choose to help him out in the most private way possible, without causing any undue attention target at him in his hour of need.

    love,

    Sopranette
     
  18. ccrobinson

    ccrobinson New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 12, 2005
    Messages:
    4,459
    Ratings:
    +0
    First, baptism isn't a bath. Second, why does anybody need to be sneaky about this? Why don't we just be adults about it?

    Your WD40 suggestion is a very bad idea. Here's a link that you'll ignore, but it will show you why it's a terrible idea.

    You don't get to change the argument by calling it an illness. The flu is an illness. A cold is an illness. Head lice is an infestation and is treatable.

    So, the church should be a doormat, allowing anything and everything just so there's no risk of a child having a negative view of church when he/she is an adult? What about the children that are already at church and have to suffer a lice infestation themselves because of this? Should the church turn its back on the children that are already at church?

    Segregated and ridiculed? Where are you getting that from? I haven't seen anybody suggesting either of these things.
     
  19. Rubato 1

    Rubato 1 New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2006
    Messages:
    1,167
    Ratings:
    +0
    I would tell them that they are in a new Sunday School class where all the new members shave their heads. Then, they will either be too embarassed to come (because of baldness) or they will come bald, and thus lower the chances of carrying lice. If they actually come, then tell them that they are officially new members until the Committe of Shavers decides that they are qualified to grow their hair out again. You can decide how to handle it from there...
     
  20. rbell

    rbell Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2006
    Messages:
    11,103
    Ratings:
    +0
    Wow...

    If you follow this line of advice, I hope your church has a good lawyer...
     
Loading...