However, smoking having both positive and negative health effects, is filtered to be based on an individual's choice. Who should be blamed if a child is freely allowed to take cigarettes as advised or allowed by an adult? The advisor and the guardians.
Then, I ponder on this issue of bleaching the skin. It has a health (related to skin) negative implication and it's positive gratification is mainly aesthetic. flimsy one for that matter.
If a mother bleaches her child, maybe as allowed by the father, at that tender age, then what will happen to that skin at 20? Maybe a new cancer will he discovered.
Who should be held responsible for misguiding the child? The parent(s). Why? The usage of that cream is based on choice made by an adult. Letting a child who is yet inclined to make wise decisions to apply such a chemical on the skin is uncalled for, and the guardian should be called to order, by fire by force.
The child is yours only when in your stomach. Once out, she belongs to the community. Is this still valid? I believe a foetus belongs to the world and not only to the one who bears the pregnancy.
Why do parents do this? Most of them have bleached their own skin to look attractive and could not stand the shame of being led out of the box by their offspring who wears the real pigment of their skin. Hence, they quickly bleach the child's skin to cover up the mess.
Watch it, this aesthetic skin menace is becoming rampant in new homes. Twenty years from now we should expect a popular skin problem.
Actions and awareness campaigns should be construed, structured and implemented to stop this future ailment.
That child has right to a healthy skin, don't use him/her to cover up your slide...
By : Mcanthony Nwatu
Post a Comment