Hospital said to friend " We don't like giving AB's to children under one" Really?

[emkana]

Makes me feel a bit rubbish really considering ds has basically been on AB's permanently since he was born.

I guess with young children it's a case of balancing benefits of ABs/risk of condition not getting the best treatment against potential risk side effects - so context is all in this regard -your friend may have been referring to conditions that are likely to clear up by themselves (conjunctivitis, ear infections) where naturally docs would avoid prescribing abs.

OUr GP avoids ABs for things that are non-life threatening, and tend to clear themselves up - e.g.ear/eye infections. TBH in those cases they have always been right. Apparetnly there has been research which suggests that the ABs don't shorten recovery in most cases. As I said we have been happy when ABs havn't been prescribed i these cases and I really don't think it would have shortened illness.

OTOH when DD3 (and DTD1 who is 6) had skin infections there was no hesitation over prescribing ABs as skin infections if left untreated can become v v nasty.

Agree with TC, depends on context it was said in.

Our GPs also avoid ABs in babies unless absolutely necessary.

oh dear God I hope it hasn't done too much damage to ds...

I really don't think it's a case of harm, more that taking ABs unnecessarily is a bad thing, as it can build up resistance to ABs (and risk of possible side effects, like dodgy tummy etc). I hate to think of you guilting yourself over this Emkana.

Bear in mind that young children with kidney problems are sometimes given IIRC trimethoprim to prevent UTIs. So you and your little boy aren't going to be the only ones in this position (Abs for under ones)

My ds had antibiotics when he had an ear infection, it then turned out to be pneumonia so he had to have strong IV antibiotics. It wasn't great but he was quite poorly and within 24 hrs of having them he was so much better. I'm glad he had them.