To think that kids be left in the bath...

[Flashbangandgone]

... While I go to another room upstairs from the age of 4?

Is it ever necessary to leave the bathroom while a young child is in the bath? No. Don't do it. If the phone or doorbell rings, leave it. If you need a towel, wait til the child is out of the bath. If you need to 'potter', choose another time to do it.

It's just not necessary, or safe, or smart, to leave a young child in a bath with even an inch of water in it.

It's just not necessary, or safe, or smart, to leave a young child in a bath with even an inch of water in it.

I think this is almost unanimously agreed by posters in principle... The contested point is whether by 'young child' you mean under 3 or under 9 (or somewhere in between).

I think it's about a mental risk assessment at the time, and being water aware
Thinking even more about this, certainly in my case my line has come from my parents and what my siblings do.
A few things have come up the lay out of the house, if it's a room off the room your "pottering" sorting out night clothes is different to even being in the next room that means you have to go through two doors.
As well as every house being different, every child is different, a four year old can be as senisable as a six year old and a six year old can be as Neive as a four year old (I purposely didn't say silly, because it's not messing around more not understanding the conquencises of their actions). A senisable nearly 5 year old I might just let be if the door was wide open and it was an ensuite.
Yes towels/clean clothes/pyjamas are occasionally forgotten, my siblings lifted the kids out and told them not to move but sometimes the agh I've forgotten 10 second dash.

As for the swimming lessons your absolutely right, there's probably an even greater risk, especially if it's a noises pool, and see we're a swimming family, our social time together revolves around our Saturday morning swim and breakfast, so we've never used these sorts of lessons. But even then accidents happen in social swimming.

What would I deem a young child, probably under 7, but I can see why people would think past reception age, when in just about everything else your in encouraging indepence.

www.parents.com/kids/safety/outdoor/dry-drowning/

Interesting article... Had no idea before i started this thread! Thankfully, extremely rare... If inhalation is immediate upon submersion, even a single second may be too late to completely remove the risk entirely!

Flashbangandgone Did you read the article about secondary drowning? All they need to cause it is seconds under water.

It's like those parents who thinks you should hold a child's hand crossing the road until they are in secondary school and like to get little bitchy digs in about people who value things other than paranoid hovering. Bitchy digs....? Oh wait, didn't YOU just make one?

Flashbangandgone Just seen your latest reply, which I hadn't seen before posting...ignore my previous Q

Is dangerous', at my daughter's (4) swimming lessons, they take place in the 'baby pool' which is about 2 foot deep. There is a teacher and a lifeguard at the side of the pool, with 4 to 6children... If one went 'under' it would be identified and dealt with pretty quickly, but unless the teacher was directly helping that child at that moment, the delay could be 10-15 seconds, perhaps a bit longer... Especially as the first instinct would be that the child is playing (children are always bobbing under for a couple of seconds). Only after a few more seconds would someone (who wasn't focussing on the child the moment they went under) be aware there was an issue, with another few seconds to wade across and pull them out.

But to this I'll add that life guards are trained to know what drowning looks like. Don't underestimate how sharp they are. I've seen kids jump in one after the other, the second one child jumped in a life guard was in the water less than a second later to pull him out because he knew he wasn't playing by the child's body language.

They've stopped crowded wave pools with tons of children dunking and splashing a few seconds after a child got off an inner tube.

So a child playfully bobbing their head and a child drowning look completely different to a trained eye. There's just no way it would take 10-15 seconds for a lifeguard to figure out a child was drowning unless they were zoning out and not doing their job.

I'm saying your child is flirting with death at every single bath time. I'm just saying that if something does happen you want to be near by.

You don't leave off seat belts because you're a capable driver. You keep them on because if an accident happens they'll save lives. Being in the same room as your bathing child really isn't much different from that.

I'm not saying your child is flirting with death..

Oh, well. I live in Japan where there were 14,000 deaths in the bathtub in just one year. In fact, kids here are four times as likely to die in the bathtub than in a traffic accident. Crazy, huh? So, I probably am a bit more careful about these things than the average Brit. Definitely won't be watching teenagers bathing but I do keep a good eye on the little ones.

In case anyone is interested, part of the problem is that most Japanese bathrooms are really cold due to no heating or insulation. However, the bathtubs usually have gas heaters so you can reheat the water while you're in the bath. So, you're sitting in this really hot bathtub and then you stand up in this really cold bathroom and your body just goes into shock and you faint. I know quite a few people it has happened to, nearly happened to me too when I was pregnant. Luckily I don't know anyone who has died (one woman was found just in the knick of time) but it's quite common with elderly people. Most bathtubs have a call button you can press to sound an alarm.

The bathtubs are also really deep here and people tend to put a cover over the tub and use the water for the washing machine so it's not unusual for kids to fall in and drown while playing. We were actually asked at my last kids health check whether we had installed a safety lock on the bathroom. I didn't even know they had them. I tend to run the washing machine as soon as the kids get out and then drain the bath. I never use the cover either.

Anyway, just wanted to point out that there are cultural considerations at play here too.

But to this I'll add that life guards are trained to know what drowning looks like. Don't underestimate how sharp they are. I've seen kids jump in one after the other, the second one child jumped in a life guard was in the water less than a second later to pull him out because he knew he wasn't playing by the child's body language.

Whereas you may have experienced a lifeguard rescue someone less than a second after they went under, it's wishful thinking to think they'll always be able to do this... They're good, but they're not superhuman!

There's just no way it would take 10-15 seconds for a lifeguard to figure out a child was drowning unless they were zoning out and not doing their job.

As a lifeguard I would just like to point out that this is absolute horseshit.

if the nonsense on this thread were true, there would be no point in lifeguards because saving people from drowning would be impossible.

It could easily take more than 15 seconds to realise one child out of a hundred was in trouble.

You don't go from totally fine to "drowning" instantaneously if you are competent at standing, walking, holding yourself upright.

That's why toddlers and water are such a dangerous mix. Because they are not that physically adept and can easily get into trouble they can't get out of by just standing up.

It's why you should never go swimming when you're drunk. Despite how fun it apparently seems to go into the sea in the dark while pissed.

I'm the spoilsport asshole who walks away and tells people I can't/won't save them if they take stupid risks.

That does not include being out of line of sight but within earshot of a 4 year old in the bath.

Yes, they might get knocked over by a tidal wave caused by their Godzilla-sized sibling and immediately inhale all the bathwater in shock.

But that's not actually very likely in practice.

*Today 06:06 Senpai

I'm not saying your child is flirting with death..*

But you seem to be.... On one hand you're saying that more than a second under is unacceptably dangerous, and yet even you are suggesting that it took a few seconds for lifeguards to stop and deal with a wave pool incident. At my DDs swimming lesson, even if the lifeguard noticed immediately, s/he isn't Superman and it would take a few seconds to jump in and wade out to pull her up... More than a single second at least...

You can't have it both ways... Either swimming pools are an unnecessary risk to be avoided, or you accept that the risk of dry drowning risk that may come with being under for more than a second is acceptable.

Interesting question. DD is 4.3 and I've been leaving her in the bath for a few seconds for a few weeks. Mostly to sort the washing, so probably about ten seconds away at most. She sings and talks loudly and constantly - the whole time she is in the bath. It's exhausting to listen to, but I would know in an instant if there was anything amiss. I've sprinted in on occasion to check she's okay when there's been silence and been told off because the shampoo bottle is sleeping

On one hand you're saying that more than a second under is unacceptably dangerous

No I am not. If you cannot form an intelligent argument without attempting to put words in my mouth, then you don't have a good debating point.

I am saying it only takes less than a second to gasp underwater in shock from falling and start drowning. A second can be the difference between your child simply coughing the water out or blacking out. That is an irrefutable fact, whether you or anyone else on this thread likes that fact isn't the point. I have already explained this several times on this thread.

I may have assumed you already had a correct understanding of drowning, and if that is the case I apologize for confusing you.

You do not die the second you inhale water. That's not how drowning works. As I have explained up thread drowning is suffocation by water. You inhale water, which causes your lungs to stop working, which cuts off oxygen, which causes brain death, which causes death. Complete death takes a couple minutes of no breathing, brain damage takes less than two...for an adult.

You don't drown from only inhaling a little bit of water like kids coming up coughing. It takes 2-4 fl oz. That is the size of an average breath (or gasp).

But arguing over a single second is a non-argument. Parents that are within a second to reach in and grab their children are already supervising them. So that argument is pointless. Arguing it takes a few to drown doesn't do you much good if you're more than a few seconds away, completely unaware they slipped underwater in the first place.

As I explained earlier. I put on seat belts when we drive. Not every small accident or fender bender makes them life saving, but the times an accident is severe, they are. It's just such a simple thing.

I don't understand why a parent wouldn't want to take basic safety precautions with their child. I really don't.

You can't have it both ways... Either swimming pools are an unnecessary risk to be avoided, or you accept that the risk of dry drowning risk that may come with being under for more than a second is acceptable.

Or I could just supervise them to make sure they don't hit their heads or slip under. What an amazing idea that would be. :)

Being in the next room listening while a four year old takes a bath is a basic safety precaution.

This is like those rear facing child seat threads where people try to make out that people who use normal child seats might as well go and decapitate their children right now because they obviously don't love them enough.

Also, life guards are trained to do CPR and rescue breathing because sometimes a few seconds is all it takes.

I'm not entirely sure you want to base your level of supervision on the assumption you know how to do emergency CPR instead of just being there in the first place...

This is like those rear facing child seat threads where people try to make out that people who use normal child seats might as well go and decapitate their children right now because they obviously don't love them enough.

Oh, yes, this lovely argument. One of the joys of MN, this one. Up there with anyone who lets their baby sleep in another room even for an hour or two in the evening before 6 months is just inviting danger into their house.

Every parent, every family, should make their own risk assessment for each situation. A parent who is happy to stand in the bedroom sorting clothes while their 4yo is in the en suite in the bath is hardly completely blase about their child's welfare.

Up there with anyone who lets their baby sleep in another room even for an hour or two in the evening before 6 months is just inviting danger into their house.

Bloody hell, is that the MN standard?? We moved our DCs into their own rooms after 13 weeks...

clare really, 18? That's far too old to not be able to 'lock the bathroom door', they're young adults who need privacy aren't they?

I don't think 4 is old enough to leave a child alone in the bath whilst upstairs getting something, no.

Yanbu I leave 4yo dd in the bath while I get her towel, get her pyjamas ready for bed etc I call to her every thirty seconds or so or chat whilst I do it. I don't feel that I'm putting her at risk, she's at risk in the playground etc too. I have a baby too and do my best to keep both safe but I don't feel you can mitigate all risk, living is a risk, taking them out in the car is probably the most dangerous activity.

Yep, babies are supposed to be with you at all times for the first 6 months, even if they won't settle at night in anything but a darkened room and so you have to spend every evening for those 6 months sitting in a silent bedroom watching telly on the laptop and never actually having a conversation with anyone.

Same as it doesn't matter if you can't actually afford a rear facing car seat, it's still wrong not to have one.

I don't understand why a parent wouldn't want to take basic safety precautions with their child. I really don't

There's a non-zero cost attached to supervision, that's why the actual level of risk matters. If the risk of drowning is 1-in-1000 supervision might a good idea, if it's 1-1000000 then not so much. (For a 5-year-old the latter seems more likely to be true.)