SUBMITTED: Monday, May 12, 2003
POSTED: Monday, May 12, 2003
It looked to me that some of those commenting did not read before speaking their mind.
Nancy says that she wanted her child not to get burned and that is why she went to "BabyTan". When she mentions her baby turning orange, this automatically tells you that UV ray were not used. This is common sense and something that everyone should have, and I would think that someone it the medical field would have. I have some medical back ground and this is one of the first things that was taught...if you don't have commond sense, then you would fail the class.
From what I read, Nancy was doing what she thought would help protect her baby while on vacation.
I am a mother of 2 boys, and we went swimming all the time, ever since they were babies. I used a lot of sun screen and kept them in the shade as much as possible when they weren't in the pool. They did get tanned, but that was over time. It seems to me that since Nancy didn't have the time to get them used to the sun over a period of time, she did what she thought was the next best thing to protect her baby. A lot of people think that artificial tanning would protect from the sun, even though it doesn't. She took her child in good faith that this would help, and instead, she ended up with an orange baby that still was unprotected from the sun.
The Point of her complaint seems to be that the BabyTan did not fullfill their end of the 'deal', not only that, but made things worse. They should at the very least refund her money and give her a very big, heartfelt appology to her.