To judge parents who dose their kids up on children's paracetamol and send them to school with a temperature?

[SwissSarah]

Just that really. I have the luxury of being a SAHP and not having the dilemma of whether to send a slightly unwell child into school. Several of my friends send their kids in with temperatures. Is this quite normal? Or do you think it is entirely unfair on the child and the rest of the class?

Is it unreasonable even with big work commitments to send a child in if it's just a temperature that's managed by paracetamol? Or am I a big softy and keep my child off unnecessarily? Thanks.

I'm a nurse, currently SAHM, 3 DC.
If my kids seem well but have a temperature, I will give medicine and send them in. If they seem otherwise unwell, ie:headache/shivery/exhausted/ then I would keep them off.
I always tell the school if I've given medicine, and tell them if he seems unwell to call me.
I think they need to learn that you can't always take a day off for every ailment, you need to learn to dose up and carry on.
There has been a very heavy cold going around, the little one has been full of snot etc, as have his class! The teachers are lovely and well aware and keep an eye on them.
And I have another son that is severely immuno compromised so I do understand about the risks etc, but you just can't keep them off for a temp, not on its own anyway.

I remember being quite peed off when DSS was supposed too ill to go to school, but was later bouncing around on the sofa. I had planned a rare day off work with my partner.
He did go to school with a cold recently, so I think the gentle word DP had with him worked.

Fair enough - feeling frazzled. I have the school hols off and consider myself incredibly lucky and in awe of parents who manage to work 'normal' jobs. I feel annoyed when people who don't have to work at all don't appreciate what they have and the situations others are in.

I'm a TA in Reception, if a child is clearly unwell then the Parent gets called in to pick them up. If they seem ok and are happy then it's not a problem.

I was a SAHP when mine were younger and would send them to school if they had a temp but seemed ok otherwise with the message of 'call me if he becomes unwell'

I do judge parents who give paracetamol like sweet. It's still a medicine, and giving it constantly is not ideal. Unfortunately, you never know if you will be really sick on day, and will need it.

I also judge parents who send their contagious kids to school. There's nothing I can do about it, but it's such a selfish thing to do: it's more convenient for them, so why should they give a damn about everybody else? That applies to everything from chickenpox to D&V unfortunately. I just hope they get it themselves.

On the other hand, you can't keep a child home every time he's a bit unwell, or they would never go. When a tiny one is litterally sleeping on the floor, I do feel sorry for them.

So many parents use school as childcare first and foremost, the others (ie mine) will keep being infected with all their germs. Nothing you can do.

I have the luxury of being a SAHP.

Well you're alright, Jack.
Some people have no choice but to go out to work, so. They have to sometimes put their children into school. When they're sick. I'm sure they hate doing it. Also you keep them off more that 2 days the EWO are pouncing on you. Are you prepared to pay the fines or go to jail for these parents.

Wow. It is so easy for SAHPs to sit in judgement of working mothers on this issue. In reality they haven't a clue of the realities of having to juggle work and childcare. That in itself is a luxury.

They'll never know that sinking feeling when you and your partner both have to be in court all day and you wake up to a vomiting child.

I am a working mum, and I do judge! When the reason my kid is throwing up is because someone was sent to school despite vomiting all night, I am the one who has to deal with it. More importantly, it doesn't do any good to my kids to catch D&V!

Unfortunately Ofted would not agree with you keeping a child off.

I get very confused on this. My dd isn't school aged so it hasn't come up for me yet, but some people seem to be of the view that if your child has a runny nose they should be kept home so they don't infect the entire school, others say send them in as long as they are physically able (with calpol beforehand if need be). I'm more inclined to the send them in if you think they can cope side, but then I worry that everyone else will be judging me for putting others at risk of infection. It's very confusing. Especially as I thought the contagious stage of illnesses isn't always when someone appears the most ill, so even if you keep them home they may already have spread it, or may do so when they return. Or maybe I've got that wrong?

If the temperature is slight and there are no other symptoms then I think it is fine, but I object to parents who deliberately send their children in when they are obviously unwell and shouldn't be there. I worked in a nursery and we often also had parents who were reluctant to pick children up who had D&V. However, one year we had to close for 2 days when all staff got D&V from a child whose parents sent them in ill. That was a wake up call for some of them.

Just from the title I knew you were either a sahp or didn't have kids yet!! Most of us can't take time off for every cough and sniffle. If child has d&v or is really ill then yes keep them off. But pull your judgiepants out your arse a bit; that must be some wedgie you have

Disclaimer: I'm not talking about badly contagious things like chicken pox, d&v and so on. Obviously I'd keep a child home if they had those. I'm more confused about things like colds.

migrating Exactly, those pills , paracetamol etc. if over used can cause serious health issues . Children are given them for nothing (or very little) and expect them for everything. A temperature (if it's high) can be more serious than just a cold.

The ridiculous absence rules are to blame.

Dd usually runs hot anyway so I would always give calpol and send her in unless she had other symptoms.
She nearly always is absolutely fine.
Wouldn't send in with d&v or if she was listless or off her food but I couldn't keep her home everytime she had a cold etc.

Migrating I agree with you about over use of medication as well. Mine are rarely ill, and rarely given medicine tbh, so much so when we need it it's usually gone out of date. I've seen some kids get calpol with breakfast just to stop them moaning. But equally I've seen adults take nurofen for a slight headache, before checking water/food intake etc. It's like they're a sweet. But that's a whole other thread.

Yabu I wish I had the luxury of staying off work every time my kids felt a bit unwell or had a temperature.

For those saying 'It's OK for you SAHMs, you don't appreciate how hard it is formus WOHMs' - what about the fact that, if one parent sends their sick, contagious child into school, your child may catch the illness, and you may end up having to have time off? Doesn't that piss you off at all?

'...for us...' not formus.

I think it's even more noticeable when it's girls. Sadly, many will have to deal with period pain from an early age, so that's 3 or 4 days of painkillers every month from early teen. Do they really need unnecessary pill from birth? (again a whole other thread)

If you have a child with chronic health issues you may be hounded by school, visited by SS, and threatened with prison if you do not send them in.

Anyway, temperature will depend on individual child. Dd has always had a low body temperature, so if the thermometer registers a "temperature" she is really quite ill; the kind of temperature that would had had me pondering whether to send her brother to school or not would have seen her delirious.

Sickness bug or something contagious no but a cough/cold then yes unless really unwell.

You see people in the work place all the time call in sick with a sniffle and can bet it's down to a childhood belief that you don't need to try if ill.

Yeah, I send 'em in. You would judge me more if I were homeless or on benefits which is what would happen. No luxury of days off when you're a single mum of 3.