to give medised/calpol night even though the age has changed?

[banana87]

DD is 2.11. I have given her Medised as needed from 1 year, as well as Calpol night as needed from 2 yrs. AS NEEDED means if she's ill, we've not given it to her just to get her to sleep. I was a nanny when Medised was ok from 3 months which is why I have given it after they changed the age.

I've told the GP this and they agree that it's fine if she needs it, but I've been made to feel like a really irresponsible parent by friends who say I shouldn't give it to her as she's under 6.

AIBU?

My child has been vaccinated against potentially fatal or disabling diseases. This is a calculated risk. There is rather a difference between protecting your child from polio and giving then a sedative to ensure a nights' s sleep when they have a snuffly nose.

Right, so you would if the benefit outweighed the risk? Yes? Is that not why most of us vaccinate anyway?

Well, to me, giving DD something (with approval of my GP) that makes her feel better outweighs that very very slight risk that something horrible will happen.

I'm not saying that everyone should therefore use Medised, I am saying that that is how I see it. Similar to those parents who refuse to vaccinate based on the very small risk of damage versus those who vaccinate as recommended.

Can I point out that I have never said I have any problem whatsoever with any medication being used at any age under specific medical instruction?

I have been calling attention to the undesirableness of abusing OTC medicines for children when they are given beyond the OTC use safety limits, without a doctor's endorsement for that specific illness in that individual child.

But ther is no comparison. A child with polio iis highly likely to be dead or disabled. A child with a cold will be better in two days.

And sedating a child when it is not medically necessary with medication that you have to lie to the pharmacist to get is just insane.

And I find it very hard to believe that a gp would condone this.

OP if you are having to lie to the pharmacist then the GP cannot be prescribing medised for treatment in colds, therefore the GP must be aware it is not clinically appropriate for your child's symptoms but is from the old fashioned school of thought that he has been prescribing this for years without any adverse effect. So you are going on the opinion of one GP as opposed to research and stuides carried out by many experts in this field

The main difference is vaccination is given at age appropriate stages under medical, these ages would be changed if in use monitoring provided evidence to suggest the ages should be changed. The vaccination can prevent them getting a particular illness completely in some cases and if they still get the illness the risk of death and serious disablement is massively reduced. The more common side effects of vaccination such as pyrexia and a sore arm/leg are easily managed and short lived.

Being congested with common cold and having a few sleepless nights is miserable but will not cause death of permanent disablement. Giving medised has minimal impact on the progress of the cold. The chance of not helping at all is relatively high and the serious side effects while not particularly common potentially have a massive (the ultimate) impact.

In summary, to me vaccination very high potential benefit low risk. Giving medised to a young child very low potential benefit (in some children negligible) and risk is fairly high when you factor in the impact and not only the chance of the side effects occurring. So again risk to benefit ratio.

Ridiculous comparison. Vaccinations are herd protection the majority protects the whole.

Drugging your child because it suits you - your child has no say and cannot articulate any side effects is a subjective choice. One that medical professionals say is a bad choice.

If the child has been subjected to paramedic hallucination how would you know? They cannot stir to tell you.

Vaccinations are dosed and set for a specific age group. The side effects are a risk. But one that is worth taking for the individual child and society as a whole.

Would you lie about your child's age to get them vaccinated early?

Paramedic = paraletic

"A child with polio iis highly likely to be dead or disabled"

Actually 99% of polio cases are mild and show only flu-like symptoms. [[http://www.nhs.uk/Conditions/Polio-and-post-polio-syndrome-/Pages/Symptoms.aspx NHS info here]

Op yabu for the many reasons that others have already given

oops NHS info here

The thing is pre-vaccination the actual number of children to suffer from long term effects were high. In the Us it is estimated that there were up to 20,000 cases annually of the paralytic form. Also some studies have suggested that upto 50% of those who contracted polio pre-vaciination era will have some form of long term affect, not necessarily immediately apparent. So what we have to consider is that a big pat of why polio is no longer feared as it once was is due to the availability of vaccination.

Regardless of why you vaccinate, you still take a risk. Not different in my opinion. And I go to a GP practice where many GP's work and not one of them has said it is NOT ok to give her Medised as needed. Contrary to popular belief, none of them are old. As a matter of fact the one I saw last week couldn't have been older than 30.

How many of them have you asked?

I find it outrageous that you are putting your child at risk, however small, so needlessly. For no reason at all. None.

Three. And it's not needless. Perhaps to you, but not to me.

Because you like a good night's sleep?

Would never give medised or calpol night to my children I'm afraid.

MediSED the clue is in the name, it's a sedative and I don't believe in drugging my kids to sleep.

As to whether I'd give it to under 6s when it's not recommended.... to be honest I think if you're medicating children under 6 with sedatives which explicitly say not for those under 6 then you should be reported to the police.

No, because I don't want my baby to be in pain. And HER sleep is important, it's what will make her better. If I could buy something that would help her breathe better or not itch (i.e. when she had a rash) that didn't contain a sleeping ingredient then I'd be on it.

Oh and when DD was born, by forceps, they gave her Calpol for 3 days in hospital because the pead said she had a headache. Guess you'd veto that too, huh?

calpol, paracetamol suspensions etc. all fine.

Non drowsy antihistamines all fine.

Sedating children.... no.

Nope. Calpol given by a doctor, or by a parent if it's the right age one is obviously OK.

You are talking about a medicine that you have to lie to a pharmacist about because it is not appropriate for the child's age.

"If I could buy something that would help her breathe better or not itch"

Well, there's karvol,, steam, raising the head of the bed,antihistamine cream, Eurax, a cool bath with bicarb in it......

On the advice that it's ok to give from my doctor. Would you rather I drag DD to the dr so he/she can administer the Medised? I refuse to believe that its wrong to give her a drug that was removed from the shelves, not because it's dangerous, but because people were overdosing and misusing it. Oh and the very very slight risk of heart arrythmia, which by the way is not mentioned as a side effect on the netdoctor website.

......cocaine, heroin, weed, whisky

Mmmmm, yep I always try those things first. ALWAYS. Which is why she only gets it 3-4 times a year, it has to be pretty bad for me to give it to her.

Oh, for fuck's sake. Ok then, you know best. Go for the brandy and the cigarettes for asthma too. After all, what do scientists know, mothers always know what's best for their children.

Enjoy your night's sleep.

So she's I'll enough to " need" Medised 4 times a year and you use other treatments all the other times? Bloody hell, she's ill a lot.