Asking Eric: Everyone has opinions about daughter’s medical care 45%

By R. Eric Thomas32%

4/9/2026, 4:00:00 AM

Keywords: Advice

BS Summary: This article contains 26 faulty reasoning types, including Negativity Bias, Appeal to Emotion, and False Dilemma, with Indoctrination as the most egregious example at 19.1% saturation with 161 hits. Analysis detected 1,353 faulty-reasoning hits from 845 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 47.3% and a BS Rank of 45% (12,225 of 21,887 articles). This article is better (less manipulative) than 55.90% of the article peer group.

Dear Eric: My 15-year-old daughter has a host of diagnoses that my husband and I are trying to navigate. 
We are receiving service and advice from a psychiatrist, a therapist, an occupational therapist and a speech therapist. 
My problem is that I am constantly receiving rude comments and unwanted advice about my daughter. 
These fall into two main categories: questioning her medication and offering other comments on her behaviors. 
How do I politely tell people that their comments are rude and that I do not wish the conversation to continue? 
The issue is mostly with visitors coming to my house and us visiting relatives who are not aware of our day-to-day lives. 
My daughter’s pills are in the bathroom, so she remembers to take them, and I’ve had visitors say things like “that’s a lot of medication” and “she seems out of it, don’t you think?” 
I recently visited my sister out of state, and she was adamant that we address one of my daughter’s behaviors in a particular way, even though we assured her it was already being addressed. 
As a parent of a child with a lot of challenges, how do I tell these people that caring for my daughter is exhausting (my husband and I both work full time) and that we need their support, not their criticism? 
 A Fed-up Mom 
Dear Mom: I’m sorry you’re having to deal with these comments. 
Even if well-intentioned, this kind of unsolicited feedback can be extremely frustrating and even hurtful. 
It may help you to head it off at the pass by bringing it up before guests come over or before you next visit someone else. 
You can be transparent about it, saying, “you may notice my daughter’s medication in the bathroom. 
People sometimes bring it up. 
I want to ask that you not do that. 
We’re in very good hands medically and we want to keep all feedback to our care team.” 
This sets an expectation for guests in your home and can help them redirect any instinct they might have to offer suggestions. 
Similarly, when visiting, you might try to preview what could happen in advance. 
I know that you may not know what will happen, but again you can reference past situations. 
“Sometimes my daughter does [example behavior], and others have found it [frustrating, inappropriate or whatever descriptor you feel is best]. 
This isn’t something she’s fully in control of and we are working to get her the help she needs. 
I’m telling you in advance because I want our visit to be a success and I want to ask for your patience and your grace.” 
Then ask them if they have any questions and give them suggestions for how they might respond in a helpful way. 
It’s fine if the ideal response is for them to ignore it. 
Dear Eric: My ex was always bad with money. 
Credit card bills, collection agency calls, gambling issues. 
You name it. 
We were together for 10 years right out of college and now we’ve been apart for about five. 
My credit is almost back to something respectable but my bank account sure isn’t. 
But I’m doing OK. 
He’s not doing so well, though. 
Surprise surprise. 
He’s got a chance to take a job that will pay him well, but it’s a long commute and he doesn’t have a car. 
He asked me to co-sign his loan with him. 
I want to help him get on his feet but I’m not sure if this is the right way. 
What do you think? 
 Bad Credit 
Dear Credit: Absolutely not. 
I’m so sorry, but he needs to come up with a different plan. 
From your telling, he still has a fraught relationship with money and bills, so he may not even be in a position to responsibly manage a car payment. 
Looping yourself into that scenario is only going to create more financial and emotional issues for you. 
There may be a part of you that thinks if you do enough for him you can fix him or help him fix himself. 
This is not your fault, but it is something you should address. 
Even if you’re still good friends, you’re also exes and so you need to redraw the boundary between the two of you. 
One place to start is Melody Beattie’s book, “Codependent No More: How to Stop Controlling Others and Start Caring for Yourself.” 
If you still feel compelled to make this easier for your ex, consider helping him look for financial counseling or reputable, non-predatory debt relief services, or helping him brainstorm other ways of getting to work. 
Is public transportation an option? 
Can he get a ride from coworkers? 
There are other ways of providing support, should you feel compelled, that don’t get reported to the credit bureaus. 
(Send questions to R. 
Eric Thomas at eric@askingeric.com or P.O. 
Box 22474, Philadelphia, PA 19110. 
Follow him on Instagram and sign up for his weekly newsletter at rericthomas.com.) 
©2026 Tribune Content Agency, LLC. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 0.0%R. Eric Thomas: 3.3%newyorkdailynews: 3.2%Confirmation Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%R. Eric Thomas: 0.5%newyorkdailynews: 0.8%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 5.8%R. Eric Thomas: 2.1%newyorkdailynews: 3.4%Availability Heuristic5.8%This article: 5.3%R. Eric Thomas: 0.9%newyorkdailynews: 1.1%Representativeness Heuristic5.3%This article: 0.0%R. Eric Thomas: 0.3%newyorkdailynews: 1.0%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 4.1%R. Eric Thomas: 1.0%newyorkdailynews: 1.3%Overconfidence Bias4.1%This article: 0.0%R. Eric Thomas: 1.7%newyorkdailynews: 6.1%Framing Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%R. Eric Thomas: 0.8%newyorkdailynews: 0.4%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 3.7%R. Eric Thomas: 0.7%newyorkdailynews: 0.5%Status Quo Bias3.7%This article: 0.0%R. Eric Thomas: 0.7%newyorkdailynews: 0.2%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 5.7%R. Eric Thomas: 2.8%newyorkdailynews: 2.8%Optimism Bias5.7%This article: 6.7%R. Eric Thomas: 1.9%newyorkdailynews: 1.2%Pessimism Bias6.7%This article: 18.9%R. Eric Thomas: 5.8%newyorkdailynews: 9.8%Negativity Bias18.9%This article: 4.5%R. Eric Thomas: 2.5%newyorkdailynews: 1.5%Self-Serving Bias4.5%This article: 3.3%R. Eric Thomas: 3.4%newyorkdailynews: 1.5%Fundamental Attribution Error3.3%This article: 2.6%R. Eric Thomas: 0.9%newyorkdailynews: 0.3%Actor-Observer Bias2.6%This article: 0.0%R. Eric Thomas: 0.6%newyorkdailynews: 1.3%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%R. Eric Thomas: 0.3%newyorkdailynews: 0.4%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 2.0%R. Eric Thomas: 1.0%newyorkdailynews: 3.9%Halo Effect2.0%This article: 0.0%R. Eric Thomas: 0.1%newyorkdailynews: 0.5%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%R. Eric Thomas: 0.0%newyorkdailynews: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 1.9%R. Eric Thomas: 0.8%newyorkdailynews: 1.4%Recency Bias1.9%This article: 0.0%R. Eric Thomas: 0.2%newyorkdailynews: 0.4%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%R. Eric Thomas: 0.1%newyorkdailynews: 0.0%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%R. Eric Thomas: 0.2%newyorkdailynews: 1.2%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%R. Eric Thomas: 0.1%newyorkdailynews: 0.2%Straw Man0.0%This article: 5.0%R. Eric Thomas: 1.1%newyorkdailynews: 3.2%Appeal to Authority5.0%This article: 10.9%R. Eric Thomas: 2.3%newyorkdailynews: 1.1%False Dilemma10.9%This article: 2.0%R. Eric Thomas: 0.2%newyorkdailynews: 0.4%Slippery Slope2.0%This article: 0.0%R. Eric Thomas: 0.1%newyorkdailynews: 0.1%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 3.7%R. Eric Thomas: 4.3%newyorkdailynews: 4.1%Hasty Generalization3.7%This article: 0.0%R. Eric Thomas: 0.1%newyorkdailynews: 0.3%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%R. Eric Thomas: 0.2%newyorkdailynews: 0.4%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 12.4%R. Eric Thomas: 3.2%newyorkdailynews: 7.4%Appeal to Emotion12.4%This article: 1.4%R. Eric Thomas: 0.4%newyorkdailynews: 0.6%Begging the Question1.4%This article: 0.0%R. Eric Thomas: 1.4%newyorkdailynews: 3.4%Post Hoc (False Cause)0.0%This article: 0.2%R. Eric Thomas: 0.0%newyorkdailynews: 0.1%Tu Quoque0.2%This article: 0.0%R. Eric Thomas: 0.4%newyorkdailynews: 0.5%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%R. Eric Thomas: 0.2%newyorkdailynews: 0.2%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%R. Eric Thomas: 0.2%newyorkdailynews: 0.2%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 9.0%R. Eric Thomas: 2.7%newyorkdailynews: 2.6%Anecdotal9.0%This article: 0.0%R. Eric Thomas: 0.0%newyorkdailynews: 0.1%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 8.6%R. Eric Thomas: 1.1%newyorkdailynews: 1.6%Ambiguity (Equivocation)8.6%This article: 0.0%R. Eric Thomas: 0.0%newyorkdailynews: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%R. Eric Thomas: 0.4%newyorkdailynews: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%R. Eric Thomas: 0.1%newyorkdailynews: 0.1%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%R. Eric Thomas: 0.1%newyorkdailynews: 0.1%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%R. Eric Thomas: 0.0%newyorkdailynews: 0.1%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 4.0%R. Eric Thomas: 1.7%newyorkdailynews: 2.1%Unattributed Quote4.0%This article: 6.4%R. Eric Thomas: 0.4%newyorkdailynews: 1.1%Quote-first Misdirection6.4%This article: 8.8%R. Eric Thomas: 2.4%newyorkdailynews: 6.7%Biased Writer Voice8.8%This article: 19.1%R. Eric Thomas: 7.0%newyorkdailynews: 3.9%Indoctrination19.1%This article: 0.0%R. Eric Thomas: 0.0%newyorkdailynews: 0.8%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%R. Eric Thomas: 0.0%newyorkdailynews: 0.2%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 4.0%R. Eric Thomas: 1.5%newyorkdailynews: 0.6%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…4.0%

845 words analyzed.

Speakers

1speaker0.6%attributed speech840writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 9 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 19 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 18 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 16 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 16 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 21 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 22 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 34 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 34 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 41 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 4 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 11 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 15 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 26 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 16 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 5 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 9 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 17 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 22 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 13 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 17 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 20 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 19 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 25 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 21 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 12 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 9 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 8 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 3 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 18 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 14 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 4 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 6 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 2 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 24 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 9 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 19 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 4 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 3 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 4 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 13 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 28 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 17 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 24 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 12 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 22 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 21 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 35 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 5 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 7 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 19 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 4 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 6 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 5 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 13 words • 100.0% coverageTribune Content Agency, LLC • 5 words • 0.0% coverage
0%flagged-word coverage
5 attributed words100% of attributed speech82% writer coverage
0%10.0%20.0%Indoctrination-19.2 ptsWriter: 19.2%Tribune Content Agency, LLC: 0.0%0.0%Biased Writer Voice-8.8 ptsWriter: 8.8%Tribune Content Agency, LLC: 0.0%0.0%Quote-first Misdirection-6.4 ptsWriter: 6.4%Tribune Content Agency, LLC: 0.0%0.0%Unattributed Quote-4.0 ptsWriter: 4.0%Tribune Content Agency, LLC: 0.0%0.0%Attempt to Sell a Product -4.0 ptsWriter: 4.0%Tribune Content Agency, LLC: 0.0%0.0%

Attribution is sentence-level. Pattern percentages are calculated only from words assigned to that voice.

Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

Hover over highlighted words in the article to view the associated bias or fallacy analysis.