To be more than slightly disturbed by SIL not giving her DS any pain relief?

[TheHouseOnTheLane]

Bit of background....SIL hasn't had her son vaccinated. Not any of the injections has he had.

He's 18 months old now and tonight we had a family dinner and he has apparently been "off colour" all day. I saw him and he was burning hot....SIL says it's his teeth coming through....which it could be of course.

He was a bit limp and unhappy, wouldn't lift his head up and looked very ill to be frank...doing that constant grizzly moan thing they do when in pain...anyway...

SIL gave him some herbal teething stuff in a syrynge and DH said "Oh bit of paracetamol...that will help him" and SIL said "No it's not...I don't give him any paracetamol. He can't have that."

AIBU to think this is bloody awful?

I've got over the issue of the injections because that is entirely her choice and me getting worried or upset won't help that at all....MIL has tried to persuede her to get him his injections but she won't budge.

But this sort of upset me...not only because it would make him feel better but because it would bring his temp down....and 18 months is so small...

For normal children with a kiddie fever that makes them feel shit, a minor cool off in a tepid bath whilst playing with their boats, followed by a bit of a cuddle on mum's lap whilst getting dry, then a lie down in cotton pyjama bottoms whilst listening to a story, is not going to result in organ failure. It will help them cool down just enough to feel slightly less shit, and hopefully then they will sleep it off naturally. If they are iller than that you need to ring the GP anyway. Stop scaremongering about organ failure unless you can find be published research into the link between tepid baths and sudden organ failure in otherwise healthy children with a minor childhood fever.

I will be quite happy to eat my words if you find a published study.

Boffin you mentioned a tepid bath.

typical mumsnet, you can say the sky is blue and someone out there will misunderstand you .Thanks to those of you who explained what I meant. I'm not 'wary' of the medication, I give calpol to my kids when I feel it is the best course of action regardless of how little/often others do. I'm wary of those who act like they have the child's best interests at heart when really they're just being judgey. and only because I've seen plenty of it in real life: the first port of call at the least grizzle is to give out calpol and any other option is seen as neglectful.

Exactly.
They are different things.

sherazade has it spot on

Please tell me you don't think your post was in the same ball park clarity wise as 'the sky is blue' sherazade. Even now, after you've added enough to your initial post to make your meaning clear where it wasn't before, neither you nor anyone else who's mentioned over-medication has been able to explain how it's relevant here. There's been no suggestion that OP wields the calpol at the slightest hint of a temperature, and no basis for thinking she thinks it's neglect not to medicate every grizzle. Nothing whatsoever. So why bring it up? It's irrelevant. Equally, if OPs SIL was at the other extreme and went through a bottle of calpol a week, the fact that some people think medication is poison and vaccines are mind control waah big pharma would have nothing to do with anything.

Well that escalated quickly.

I'd like to know the practical difference between tepid sponging and a tepid bath and the difference between a 'kiddie fever' and an adult one...

One is a brief intervention followed by being allowed the opportunity to sleep, the other is supposed to take place repeatedly at intervals of 20 minutes over a couple of hours at least, and may well end up disturbing sleep and by extension recovery. This is before we even get into trying to speculate on the differential effects of a one off v frequent intervention on core temperature regulatory control on children.

One may reduce core temperature at a different rate and cause a rebound in a different way to the other - in the absence of a proper comparative trial we can only speculate about physiological mechanisms, as I say.

A kiddie fever as I use the term here is a non specific self-limiting viral infection that results in a temperature of over 100 degrees F for more than four hours or so. In other words, the type of fever pattern more frequently seen amongst young children than adults.

You still haven't directed me towards published research on tepid baths and sudden organ failure amongst otherwise healthy children with self-limiting viral infections.

Some babies grizzle all day. Some babies moan all day. Some babies wont put their heads up when they are tired. 'A bit limp and unhappy' are all subjective. That baby might or might not really need some pain/fever relief but there is no hard proof that in this case it is an absolute medical imperative. And given the current trend to dish out calpol to grizzly babies who are otherwise fine, I wouldn't be surprised if it was totally unnecessary. As usual, people here think they know far better.

Smill, love a good debate when people are invoking semi-science and bringing on the Armageddon scenarios, me. I am amazed the Daily Fail isn't into this sudden organ failure in the bath outbreak amongst children.

Incidentally I have both children's Calpol and Ibuprofen in my medicine cabinet and I am not afraid to use them

If other people don't want to, fine, but bear in mind even children's toothpaste has a degree of toxicity it so ask yourselves whether you have a proper understanding of comparative risk as you make these decisions.

I think you're getting confused about who you're talking to, BoffinMum. That or you're just being needlessly aggressive. You asked a question after other people were advising you that tepid baths were not OK. I was one of a few who explained why this might be the case.

You've also changed tack rather dramatically from arguing from anecdote to trying to sound like you are well informed in the matter. Unless I'm also getting mixed up with who is posting what.

Sherazade, my rule of thumb would be whether I would be prepared to drive to find the medicine for my child. If so, then I would medicate. Having a sachet handy would not be a good enough reason for me.

What part of what I said was 'semi-science'?

You seem to be qualifying your argument with 'but if it were a serious fever that could result in harm then the parent would obviously take the child for medical attention so that's not what we're talking about'. Except you're the only one who has claimed that is the context.

Smill, I am not aggressive. I was merely accusing you of scaremongering and having a bit of a quiet snigger at your expense when you started on the semi-science and invoking organ failure and a level of risk totally disproportionate to the situation of most kids with a non specific virus and a bit of a temperature. Mean, perhaps, to snigger, but not aggressive, and probably fair game considering the nonsense you were coming out with.

As I said, find me the published study and I will be happy to grovel publicly. Only fair.

Just to make myself quite clear, you evaluation of the risk of organ failure was the inaccuracy that I felt obliged to challenge.

Just to make myself quite clear, you evaluation of the risk of organ failure was the inaccuracy that I felt obliged to challenge.

I'm not sure where I gave any kind of indication of evaluation of the risk of organ failure.

All I intended to do was explain what the ultimate consequence could be in a situation where the core temperature increased too much. I.e. why people would advise avoiding the thing that could lead to that in certain situations. Since in your original post you used a tone that suggested you had absolutely no idea why it could be a bad idea...

Yes, but you didn't qualify that with the likelihood of it happening, did you? You implied that the risk was sufficiently high to avoid bathing all young children in this way. Whereas in actual fact we don't know the exact level of risk as there are no published studies. All we have is theorised physiological recommendations and NICE guidance, which is not the same as published research.

Still happy to grovel as soon as you post the link to the research substantiating your argument.

For any lay Mumsnetters considering university careers, this debate represents what a normal day in an academic job is like. With a bit of form filling and a few coffees thrown in.

You implied that the risk was sufficiently high to avoid bathing all young children in this way.

My post in combination with other people's posts could perhaps be interpreted as implying that if you were sufficiently rabid, but I did not write other people's posts...

I don't have to link to research 'substantiating my argument' when 'my argument' is one that you've made up in your head.

So you retract the statement about organ failure being a significantly likely outcome of a tepid bath when used with otherwise healthy children to avoid its use as an intervention then?

So you retract the statement about organ failure being a significantly likely outcome of a tepid bath when used with otherwise healthy children to avoid its use as an intervention then?

Well gee, I must have done so already, because I can't see it in my posts.

I sure hope you're better at this in your day job. And more polite.

Ah that's sad poor little fella, I'd always want to give them something if they are in pain. I've got friends that are the same and makes me laugh because the father is a always popping opiate painkillers for his back pain, but they won't give the DC's anything!

To be fair to Smilas, she didn't present it as a 'likely outcome', she said it was a worst case scenario.