Mumsnetters aren't necessarily qualified to help if your child is unwell. If you have any serious medical concerns, we would urge you to consult your GP.

Should I expose my 7 month of DS to chickenpox

(89 Posts)
Gumgardener321 Mon 20-May-13 19:04:08

Hi,
My nephew has chickenpox and wondering if I should expose my DS to him in the hope of him catching them. I've heard it's best for children to have chicken pox early but this early?
Any advice will be appreciated

ENSMUM Mon 20-May-13 19:09:54

No! I think if they have it before a year old they may not be fully immune so could still get it again.i don't think it is really a food idea to purposely expose a child to chicken pox anyway.

MaterFacit Mon 20-May-13 19:10:11

I wouldn't.

DS had it when he was ten months old and he had it much more severely than his sister who was five. He screamed all the time, wouldn't be distracted, I couldn't comfort him properly as it hurt him to be held, he didn't sleep properly for days. He struggled to eat because he had them in his mouth, it hurt him to wee and poo and the ones in his nappy area got very sore because they got less air, whereas DD wandered around naked for a few days. He was too young for Calpol, too young to cuddle up and watch a DVD, too young not to scratch (DD was better but DS has quite a few scars). Being housebound with DD was much easier than being housebound with DS. DD sailed through, applied her own creams etc, slept well, recovered quickly and has very few scars. She was happy to float around in a bath of oats etc, he screamed, tried to eat the oat sachet, wanted me to cuddle him, wanted to go abck in the bath, was hungry, tired grumpy feverish and in pain.

That was three years ago and I remember just how horrible it was and how miserable he was.

Sirzy Mon 20-May-13 19:13:33

No.

Although for most it is mild (but unpleasant) for some, even without underlying medical conditions, it can be very serious. How would you feel if you purposly exposed your child to an illness which left them in hospital?

ginmakesitallok Mon 20-May-13 19:14:25

Why would you want to make your baby sick?

Don't be daft. Why would you want your little baby to catch a serious viral illness? In most people chicken pox passes off without incident but complications are possible. Don't subject yourself to the worry of it. Obviously if older siblings have it then there's nothing to be done.

MaryPoppinsBag Mon 20-May-13 19:15:24

No don't do it. My friends baby (similar age to yours) was hospitalised with it. I also know someone else's child (toddler) who was hospitalised with it.

It can be very nasty. Let them catch it naturally.

HerrenaLovesStarTrek Mon 20-May-13 19:16:32

DS1 and DS2 had them together; DS1 was 1.5 and DS2 was 6mo. DS1 didn't seem that fussed, whereas DS2 had a more severe reaction (i.e. lots more spots, in lots more places).

I wouldn't say it was dreadful, but that was just in our case - unfortunately you have no way of knowing how bad it is going to be before the onset.

We gave both of them loads of calpol though, since it's ok from 2 months onwards.

IwishIwasmoreorganised Mon 20-May-13 19:16:55

No. Although you can't stop him from ever being exposed to it, doing it knowingly is daft.

AmandinePoulain Mon 20-May-13 19:17:50

Good grief no shock

As has already been said, infection before 1 may not lead to lifelong immunity, at that age he'd be too young for piriton which can really ease the itching, and how would you feel if he was really really ill with it and you'd deliberately exposed him to it? hmm

morethanpotatoprints Mon 20-May-13 19:18:36

Hello OP.
I don't know is the answer.
I couldn't knowingly or avoidably, just in case it became serious.
However, ds1 was 3 and full of chicken pox shortly after ds2 was born. I kept them away from each other but at a few weeks old ds2 caught them.
They were so mild the doctor said he may get them later in life, but he didn't.
he had really bad shingles at 14 though and was very poorly for quite some time. Off school for 6 weeks poor love, they were very painful.
Don't do it, its not worth the risk, imo smile

Herrena that's what happened to us - dd1 was 3 and dd2 5 months. She was fine but I would never have knowingly subjected her to it. By the time dd1 became spotty they had of course been in continuous close contact. We thought dd2 might not catch it but she did and (we assume) gave it to dd1's little friend who gave it to her brother. Out of all of them he was the worst - poor lamb was 5.

No, absolutely not. Why would make a vulnerable baby sick?

Chicken pox is serious and can have horrible complications.

Gumgardener321 Mon 20-May-13 19:31:04

Thank you all for your comments. Been told by a few people that I should take him to see his cousin as better to get them early but he is still sooo young and like many of you have said we won't know how serious it will affect him and I would feel so awful if he became really ill. I'm a first time mum and was worried I was being over protective

DearPrudence Mon 20-May-13 19:32:55

No

EldonAve Mon 20-May-13 20:43:51

I have also heard of the under 1 they can get it again but not seen any sources to back this up

Getting it out of the way before school is good though

dyslexicdespot Mon 20-May-13 20:47:27

I would stop consulting the people that suggested you expose him to CP. they are idiots and their advice will harm your baby.

HaveAGoAtMe Mon 20-May-13 20:49:35

Gosh it's a good job you're all so experienced and knowledgeable. You must NEVER be/have been unsure about stuff with your first child. I bow down to your superiority.

Nordicmom Mon 20-May-13 20:53:08

I wouldn't do it on purpose with a small baby ! It can be a serious illness with complications and with a child under one I'd be more worried than with an older child ... My DS seems to have had it twice . A very mild suspected case ( GP diagnosed ) as a toddler and then a proper one at school age that hopefully gave him immunity .

valiumredhead Mon 20-May-13 20:57:54

No I wouldn't, it can be horrible especially when they don't know what's going on.

getting chicken pox under 1 year increases the risk of childhood shingles. Ds had chicken pox at around 6 months and then had shingles at the age of 3 which wasn't nice. 7 months is too young for deliberate exposure.

RandomMess Mon 20-May-13 21:00:02

No because they can't communicate with you. My 11 month old ended up in hospital on antivirals etc etc turned out she also had an ear infection that had been missed by all the various doctors that had seen her. Had she been much older she would have said that her ear/head hurt.

She was so poorly for 5 days, very frightening.

Haveago - chip on your shoulder much? hmm

The OP has said she didn't know what to do so she's asked for advice and received it. Personally I've been a mother for 15 years. I've three dcs, one has a congenital heart defect, two have psoriasis, one is a 'spirited' child grin, one is G&T, all of had chicken pox plus croup, ear infections, d^v bugs, pulled elbow etc etc. In the 15 years I've seen a lot with my dcs and with the dcs of my friends and family. I actually am experienced and knowledgeable - as are many, many posters on this site which is why asking a question is useful.

expatinscotland Mon 20-May-13 21:02:10

NO.

HaveAGoAtMe Mon 20-May-13 21:04:30

Yes. It's good to ask and I'm glad she did. I'm her sister, mother of said pox boy and long time poster - forgot password so re registered. I saw red with some of the messages. It was like she suggested sharing her heroin needle with a newborn. "You'd expose your TINY VULNERABLE BABY to THAT? Shock horror etc"

Join the discussion

Join the discussion

Registering is free, easy, and means you can join in the discussion, get discounts, win prizes and lots more.

Register now