Visiting an Invalid

Hawera Star, Volume LIV, 5 March 1935, Page 8

Visiting an Invalid

Be Your Normal Self if you are going to see a friend who is ill, take pains over your appear, ance, and wear y’O-ur prettiest frock and hat. ’Be your normal, charming self. Don’t try to be unnaturally cheerful; on the other hand, don’t be gloomy and full of foreboding. Take some flowers with you, or fruit if it is allowed, or a magazine or little gift. Leave something pleasant behind for your friend to enjoy, even if it is only a memory of your smile. Don’t enter the room on tiptoe and speak in lowered voice. Don’t criticise the arrangements of the sick-room unless you have something practical to suggest, or make reflections against her doctor or nurse. Don’t recommend her a quack medicine that may clash with her doctor s prescription. Don’t recall all the stories you know of people who' had that particular illness and were never well ao-ain. Don’t shout, laugh loudly, or sit on the bed. Take a chair near the bed where the invalid can see you. Don’t overdo your sympathy and encourage the invalid to self-pity, but do show that you are genuinely sorry for her. Don’t stay too long. Do watch for the first sign of- fatigue, and go quickly when you see it.

Post-Victorian Reforms

Freedom in Family Life The evolution of parents falls roughly into three broad phases, the pioneers in the road to to-day’s happier families were the cave dwellers. ' Life for children in those far-off: days must have held very little of pleasure, or of “childhood” as we know it. 'Certainly there could have been no time to devote to the younger members of the family when the parents and the elder children were constantly occupied in hunting for food or warding off attacks from enemies. And. father must have been an autocratic despot—-quite in keeping with the circumstances, of course —but hardly a pleasant parent. He did not argue. He reached for a weapon. Then time passed, and family life passed through various stages, each one showing some slight general improvement over the last. Then, with the nineteenth century came the Victorian father who, I suppose, could best ;be described as a benevolent despot!

It is not uncommon to bear an elderly woman say that she trembled every time she heard her father’s footsteps, not because he wag a bad man, but merely because he automatically adopted the father browbeating, Victorian technique of fatherhood! The unhappiness in. Victorian families, hushed up at the time, but subsequently revealed in. a multitude of way's, was mainly due to the father’s determination to control every little action of his children. He tried fo possess his children'body and soul —ostensibly for their own good, of course. No one ever told him that it is not possible to possess another human being for any length of time, so lie went on making efforts to do the impossible, with much consequent heart-Durning in the family circle 1

He was an improvement on the caveman parent; theoretically, lie had a tender regard for his children, although he doubted whether tenderness paid very well in practice. -Sometimes he would even listen to the children’s point of view without assaulting them, even- if the conversation made little difference to his subsequent actions! The miseries of the Victorian, household were so well depicted later on in a series of novels and reminiscences, that one is apt to forget that its inmates did manage to have a good time in spite of it all. . . . We pass to parents and family' life of to-day, and it is at once apparent that the improvement is immense. Parents, wiser than governments, have discovered that arbitration is a better way of settling disputes than force, because its effects, while not so immediately flattering to.the self-esteem, arc lasting and satisfying. Father retains the nominal position of head of the household, but exercises his power only in cases of dire necessity. Both fathers and mothers have come to one very important conclusion—that in matters affecting their own children, there is a possibility that sometimes they may be wrong! This may not sound very exciting. But really' it is revolutionary, because so much of the parenthood of the past was based on the infallibility of parents where their children’s welfare was concerned. Practically, too, parents are infinitely more efficient than their predecessors wore. They believe less in old wives ’ tales- a‘nd more in the counsels of the experts —whether the point at issue be the feeding of babies, the choice of a school, or the desirability of vaccination!