to think this is tantamount to child cruelty?

[70schild]

Or maybe I am massively over reacting?

My friends is refusing to give her little girl calpol to reduce her temperature as she claims it is counter-productive.

She is saying that a raised temp is the bodies way of killing off a viral infection and so we shouldnt interfere with it.

I always thought that a raised temp was a by product (ie consequence) of the body fighting off a virus (an indication that the immune system was working)

She admits that her daughter (aged 17 months) has had a temp of over 40 at times during the weekend but she still refuses to either give her calpol or even to put a fan on her.

It is really upsetting me because my little one who is the same age is just so poorly when his temp goes up and I do all I can to bring it down and make him comfortable.

I always thought it was dangerous to let their temp go too high?

There is a risk of fitting if the baby's temperature gets too high.

Not sure what the medical advice would be, tbh, but I always gave ds calpol if he was ill. I also agree that it could be dangerous to let the temp get too high, can't it induce fits or something?
Sorry, hopefully somebody with real knowledge will be along shortly!!

x-posts!!! Glad someone agrees with me

Kerry has just written what i was going to write - your friend is misguided. I think the rule of thumb for me is, well, if i have a fever, i take something to make me FEEL better - so i do the same for my child. A temp of 40+ in a 17m old is VERY dangerous.

I guess all you can do is tell her that you read this somewhere and let her make her own mind up. But i would definately say something.

Im not so sure it is counter productive though is it?? I don't think you should give paracetemol or any other drugs unless its absolutely necc but i think the temp is a bi-product of the immune response and not part of it - i am willing to be corrected on this though.

I have always found that calpol/medised seems to reduce DS discomfort and unhappiness when he is ill

She may very well be right. Bacteria and viruses tend to thrive within a very narrow temperature band, and too much heat kills them. Way too high for a small child is much higher than for an adult. A temp of 38 or 39 for a 2 yr old is not alarming. My then 2 yr old daughter had a temperature of 106F ( once (she had what the Americans call "strep throat") which might have made an adult very ill. She on the other was fine and dandy after a day.

There also growing body of medical evidence to suggest that certain cancers go into spontaneous remission following a fever. I don't think the good points of fever are well enough known.

I do give my boys Calpol when they have a temperature, but I have read and do believe that what your friend says is correct. The raised temperature should speed up recovery and should be self-limiting so long as it's caused by 'disease', ie. not poisoning or something else external, so not in itself dangerous. However, a temperature rising too quickly can cause convulsions which can be very unpleasant to watch but should not actually cause permanent harm. I don't have any medical training, this is just what I've read. I try to avoid antibiotics etc unless absolutely necessary, but I can't see any good reason to withhold a small dose of calpol to make a child more comfortable while they recover from a minor illness, in spite of what I've said above. Especially if the only symptom of the illness is a high temperature, why not take away the symptom even if the underlying virus may hang around a bit longer than it otherwise would.

sorry, 106F= something over 41C

She was still at 104C (40C) the next morning.

Overheating can cause febrile convulsions in children. Prevention is better that a cure surely? I wouldn't let my Dc's suffer like that unnecessarily and I'm quite anti when it comes to medicines. Gave Dd Calpol tonight as she has swollen glands and runny nose...trying to nip it in the bud so to speak.

Ds ended up in A&E as a toddler when I couldn't reduce his temperature. Frightening.

I wouldn't give Calpol for a mildish fever unless DS gave me reason to think he was in discomfort. But I agree that there comes a point where you need to intervene to bring down a fever - that's the approach my GP advised as well.

Also, you I would generally try other methods before resorting to Calpol - again, unless he was in pain and needed it for pain relief. Sponging with tepid water etc.

YANBU to think that she should do something to bring down the temp but it is her choice if she gives her child capol or not.

I rarely give my children Calpol. I don't refuse point blank, but I don't give it often. Last time I went to use it it was out of date

I also don't have a thermometer, so I can't tell exactly what temperature they're running.

DH and I don't have much in the way of painkillers ourselves either. We just tend not to medicate for minor illnesses.

I don't think out approach constitutes child cruelty. Neither am I convinced that giving a child Calpol for a cold will nip it in the bud.

Oh, bit of a controversial one here. One of my good friends is a paediatrician and we have discussed this topic a few times as I'm not keen on giving any medicines to DD's unless absolutely necessary. She is of the opinion that a fever can be beneficial in fighting infection and so long as the child is not in any discomfort or distress then there is no need to give anything so I tend to go with that as a rule. Regards the febrile convulsions I have heard that some children are prone to them with high temp but that the child often has had the fit before you've even had time to notice the high temp as it happens so quickly, pretty scary though, my friend's DS had one in supermarket around Christmas time and it was a horrible experience.

I would say that if your friend's kids aren't in discomfort with temp then it isn't cruel so long as she isn't ignoring persistent high temp. Does she use cool flannels/baths or anything for them?

tis a bit of a double edged sword to be sure. i was put off paracetemol use by the asthma link news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/7623230.stm but regardless, it does seem that evidence now supports the "fever helps fight germs" theory, in that, paracetemol will reduce the fever but prolong the infection. according to this referenced article www.virtualmedicalcentre.com/symptoms.asp?sid=24 febrile fits are not pleasant, but not dangerous. however i think i'd prefer not to see my LO have one. i'd use ibuprofen if pushed.

My daughter had a febrile convulsion at age 2 and it was terrifying. She ended up on oxygen being rushed to hospital where they dosed her all night with calpol and ibuprofen. Her temperature was in the 40-42 range and they were quite concerned and said it needed to come down. She was much better in the morning and released. I've always dosed with Calpol since, although I'm wary of drugs on the whole.

I'm with duchesse, Twinklemegan and TheFallenMadonna on this one, in terms of my undertanding.

I think it tends to prolong the illness, though it might make them a bit more comfortable during it. So I have given calpol if they seem v. uncomfy, though all the while wondering if it just prolonged the agony ... .

Re the sponging - I'm sure I read somewhere that it's not generally advised now as the blood vessels under the skin can constrict in reaction to the rapid cooling and actually make the fever ultimately worse by trapping heat deeper in the body.

A fan or open window that isn't cooling the skin too rapidly is meant to be more beneficial.

Under 40 she is pretty right, but over 40 I would say she is dead wrong. There is worrying evidence that overuse of paracetamol is linked to other conditions later in life like asthma and so on. I am in Australia where it is liberally used by most, but I had my 1st in Germany where the rule is only for over 40. They much prefer to bring a temperature down by wrapping the legs in towels soaked with cool (but not cold) water. It is very effective actually.

She's wrong not to try and bring the child's temperature down.

My DS spent 4 night in hospital solely because his temperature was too high and the staff at the hospital struggled to bring it down, so this shows a temperature should always be taken seriously.

As with all medication though, it should be used with caution.

I agree with AussieSlim, but then I had my children in Germany too so that was the advice given.

Up to 40°C I would let my child fever if he/she were not in discomfort. If I feel that it will help them sleep and get rest, then I give Calpol below 40°C as I am of the opion that a good sleep makes a huge difference when they are ill.

Above 40°C I would definitely give Calpol.

Children react very differently to high temperatures. One child looks and feels terrible with a temp of only 38.5° and the next is still running around and looking fit with a temp of 39.9°C.

I think you've been a bit OTT saying it's child cruelty!

But, as with some of the other posters, I would have given it if my child's temp had gone above 40. Is her child uncomfortable or 'just' poorly?

personally I agree with your friend.. YABVU to call it child cruelty!

YANBU - that is child cruelty. bet she would take something if she had a headache

the child is at risk of febrile convulsions with temps over 39 degrees. paracetamol (calpol / medinol) just resets the body's internal temperature system. she is right that a temperature can be the sign of infection but its just plain cruel to let anyone, let alone a baby suffer when in pain and discomfort.