I visited my doctor recently with the flu, and commented that he must get sick a lot himself, his reply astounded me, he said, with all the patients I see my immune system can handle anything. My point is if kids don't have accidents how are they supposed to learn.

My generation [I'm51] seems to be the last generation who had freedom to have accidents. To me the 21st century is more dictatorial than free in many respects, tragic really, between computing and McDonalds we have become just another external state of the U.S.A.

The open toilet issue at pre-school was a major issue for my children who saw it as an invasion of privacy and disgusting. They developed the strongest bladder, and could go all day without having to use the loo.

The problem with the administrative overprotection of children is that children are not being taught how to deal with issues and they are not experiencing situations, given responsibility or taught to think and make good choices.

The system doesn't want them to question things as is grooming robots who dont question or challenge and who take no responsibility at all for thier own actions. This variety is easier to control.

Regulation is the price of government involvement. Many parents can't afford or won't afford the true price of care. That means governments (read taxpayers) pick up substantial tabs. Child Care costs federal taxpayers $10 billion over four years. Similarly State Governments (most) pay for pre-schools and regulate child protection provisions.

Unfortunately many parents don't accept "accidents" nor accept that they retain some resposoibility for the child when they have dropped them off. Similarly we are an increasingly litigant society so child care centres have to respond to both regulation and their insurance risks (all of which further add to cost). Care of children is a big responsibility and I think I am more forgiving of relevent regulation in this than the author - who knows he has an alternative.

I note the baby boomer suggesting they were the last to be allowed to have accidents. A worthy observation - but I also note that generation (perhaps not the contributor) were the parents and litigants of the past 30 years...cheers

"Childcare centre staff never take children out into the community, our litigious society has made it too great a risk."

Hmmmm ... doesn't sound like my kids' childcare centre. They've been out on a number of occasions, so it's not too great a risk, then - just gotta give permission as parents. And are my kids the only ones who don't give a monkey's if the pre-school toilet has no door?

Daniel, I think you're forgetting some of the dreadful things that happened to children before much of the present legislation was introduced (not that all of it is perfect). And yet horrible things still happen to kids everyday - wasn't it just this week that a child was shut in a locked car? And wasn't it around this time two years ago that a two-year old died in the neighbour's spa bath - how can you be so foolish to let your child wander off like that?!?!?! If you're going to talk about "taking risks", just remember that ONCE is all it takes - too many stupid parents don't realise this until it's too late. And, for that matter, once is too often.

The article raises some good questions.

I don't have my own children. However, it seems to me that so many seem to be missing out on simply being able to walk or ride to and from school. Nowadays, it seems that most are dropped off and picked by adults in cars, considerably adding to the volume of traffic and, thereby increasing the hazard of vehicle accidents.

An alternative to driving, that is the 'walking bus', in which a group of school children, accompanied by at least one adult, proceed along a predetermined route to a predetimined schedule, 'picking up' other school children along the way has been tried in recent years, but appears not to have widely caught on.

That we have to take such extraordinary steps to look after our children instead of just allowing them to make their own ways to and from school, at their own pace, on their own, or with friends of their choosing, as we did in the 60's and early 70's, indicates to me that our society has gone backwards, rather than forwards, since then.

So, I think Daniel's article provides yet onother good reason to question the direction our politcal leaders are taking us.

---

In regard to the lack of privacy, Daniel's point in general is valid. However, in regard to toilet privacy, I remember that at our kindergarten, the toilets were in one open room and I think both girls and boys used the same toilets if memory serves me correctly. This has also often been the case with military insititutions.

Personally I did not feel any need for toilet privacy until I was five.

Of course, I am sure that, today, I would object just as much as Jason's son did to having his toilet privacy denied to him, however, we need to acknowledge that this is not considered necessary in many societies around the world today and in the past, most notably in ancient Rome, and we might need to question why.

And for that matter, Daniel, where are the seesaw-less parks you speak of? My local has a couple that my youngest loves to walk up and leap from - just as we used to as kids. Better research would help your credibility ....