So lucky - 'drowned' toddler is revived after 7 hours

[Hulababy]

Summary:

A toddler was revived more than seven hours after he was found face down in his family's pond.

The medical team worked for more than five hours to make his heart beat again and another two stabilising him.

Dr Makwana said the boy survived because the cold water, coupled with the chilly winter weather and his small size, caused his temperature to plummet suddenly. He said this sent him effectively into a deep freeze which had prevented significant brain injury.

But Joe's father said his two large ponds will not be filled in despite the near tragedy.

He added: "I don't see that it benefits anybody to be so scared of everything. Accidents happen."

Full story here

Wow how lucky is this family.

Think I would be filling in the ponds though. Accidents may happen - but I wouldn't want to risk it again. DH's grandad filled in his very shallow pond the moment he heard he was getting great grandchildren. He didn't even want the risk to be there.

I can also remember going to the "Tufty Club" when very young, to teach me road safety. That included the simple "Look right, look left, look right again" mantra. I really enjoyed it - but there doesn't seem to be anything similar nowadays.

Ds does get sent a "Road Safety" booklet every couple of months, which has games and colouring things in it for him to learn bout it himself - but the onus is on the parents to go throught it, and ds isn't yet ready for that type of "teaching". He's not in to colouring in or directed play yet - although to be fair, he IS only 3.10!

Would like to read about that book, what's its name again?

We saw this report on our local news bulletin last night.

Guess what - they now have a newborn child in the family.

Surely they don't want this to happen to either of the children now?

Mind you, there was loads of cigarette smoke around the kids during the interview so I don't suppose they give 2 hoots about the kids health do they?

Accidental death, and indeed all accidents relating to children have shown a steady decline, so I'm not totally convinced by the paranoid parenting thing (also not at all sure about Frank Furedi full stop).

"Paranoid Parenting" by Frank Furedi.

You can read an excerpt here - it's actually the introduction.

I don't know the book but over protective is clearly a subjective view, presumably no parents themselves consider they are over protective or they would become less protective.

I am a very laid back mother (too laid back I think) but my ds choked on a 2pence peice when he was about 18months old. It was stuck inj his gullet but luckily I managed to get my finger behind it and flip it out. It really did scare the hell out of me and I lived accross the road from A&E! these things happen so quickly, I think we all have to have a degree of vigilance

What is so wrong in being over protective these days anyway?

There is so much to protect our kids from that we have to be on our guard at all times.

When I dropped DD off at nursery this week, a 3 yr old I knew was standing outside nursery looking into the playground.

I knew his Mum was inside the gates out of view watiting to take her DD into nursery. I managed to grab him and take him to his Mum. She had no idea he had left her side as she was so busy chatting.

I could have been anybody.

I don't think I am a overly protective (or paranoid either), but I guess I am protective of my toddler - yes. But I see that as my job. She isn't old enough, at 2yo, to protect herself so surely as her parents it is for me and DH to look out for her the whole time?

I guess I'd rather be protective and have her here with me, than the opposite end of the scale

wasn't that child a gorgeous bonny thing?

The parents and little boy were on GMTV this morning and when asked about the pond the mother replied that it was still there and that her son hadn't been near it since. I was shocked that they hadn't drained it I must admit.

Yes but Aloha, in trying to protect against any every possible accidental death, what are we preventing our childerne from doing or learning?

We are being told that there is an obesity epidemic in the making, caused partly by the fact that children aren't going outside and playing. We complain that children spend too much time on PCs or watching TV - but don't give them the freedom to go out and play on their own.

Lemonice is right - none of us think that WE are over protective - but it is easy to slide into that protective way of thinking.

Part of parenting is ALSO having the courage to LET your children go and explore the world for themselves. Scary, YES. But also necessary.

I have actually asked my mum and dad to let me know if they ever think we are being over protective.

I fully intend to encourage ds to walk ON HIS OWN to Primary School from a young age. It will involve crossing one slightly busy road - but it is a manned crossing, and until I am confident that he won't go another route, he won't be allowed to go on his own - but once he is, then off he'll go.

I have a theory that older parents (as dh and I are) go one of tow routes - either ultra relaxed or ultra protective. I have to admit that we are positively laid back - perhaps helped by a laid back, (usually) amenable) kid.

For example, we chose not to have a stair gate - but taught him how to climb and go down stairs safely. As a result, he has never fallen down stairs - and we were able to be relaxed visitng frend's houses or staying in chalets where there weren't stair gates. I realise that that was a personal choice, but it worked for us.

Momp - one of the things that Furedi talks about is the current failure of Anglo-American society to take a collective responsibility for the children in the community. You weren't just "anybody" - you were another concerned mother, so goo dofr you. And the VAST majority of people around would do the same thing - or would have done in previous times. The sad thing is that in our society we are becoming too scared to look out for other people's children - especially men, because of what people might think.

"Stranger danger" isn't any greater now than it was in previous eras. It's just our perception of it has changed.

That should read "good for you" - I really should Preview!

from another point of view i chose to have a stairgate so ds could crawl round upstairs without me watching to ensure he didn't fall downstairs!!

We only a stair gate for the balcony - 5 floors up sp no way am I rsking that. We don't have stairs at home but DD has been taught to climb up and down them safely. She has been able to do this for months and months, but knows - if playing without supervision upstairs - to shout me first to watch me. She has always done this UNTIL Monday. She did shout but decided to start anyway. Next thing I heard she was at the bottom of the stairs - very steep ones, from the top. Luckily she was fine without a scratch but very shaken.

Accidents can happen at any time, regardless of how you teach them. I just prefer, on the whole, the prevention route, rather than the cure afterwards route.

Thanks for the name of the book, talking about over protective parents. I have some friends that don't allow their girl to see Disney movies as they said are incredibly cruel and not good for children under 12 (their daughter is 4).

I have some other friends who collect children's stories and they have always insisted that sad events present at some of them (bamby loosing her mother, Cindirella bullied by step sisters) are part of the life skills learning that help children to understand the nature of life and prepares them to stand against life unfairness.

I really find it ridiculous, needless to say that the mum in the anti-disney family has been sulking for three years because not all the people in her office says hello when they arrive...

Yeah, I know, not much related with the discussion but another form of overprotection which sadly is causing isolation to the girl as she doesn't have many things in common with the rest of the children.

I agree with Frank Furedi about lots of things, but he is ott fanatical about the safety culture. Some risks should be taken, and children do have to learn to judge for themselves, but there are other risks where the consequences of them getting it wrong are too dire to allow them to take the risk.

I admire your patience in not having stair gates JanZ - I just can't be arsed to put in the work of supervising the stair climbing for so long and then teaching the safe way. Same with ponds - they're fine if you're happy to supervise your kids 100% of the time when they're in the garden. But I can't be arsed to do that much supervision, I'd rather be able to dump the kids in the garden and know they're safe. And to take the risk of leaving them unsupervised just doesn't seem worth it to me, because of the potential consequences.

I agree about the Disney movies helping with sad events - ds was able to relate to one of our cats dying because of Mustafa dying in "The Lion King".

I think statistics can be misleading I doubt me nearly drowning was recorded (although i was unconscious and the gp came to see me)and I was the victim of an attempted abduction when I was 9 and I don't know whether that would have been statisticised either but maybe yes as the police were involved. I can't help thinking that i can't be that unusual in having these things happen. I think these things are made more of now, I still carried on being allowed out on my own. I was scared after the abduction thing though. But I was more scared of telling my parents, my friend and I didn't tell them until two or three hours later. I would have hated my parents to have become more cautious than they were. All the best memories of my childhood are to do with being off out on my own or with friends.

My children used to think I was over protective (they just put their hands over their ears and go yeah yeah heard it all before) but I now think that I must be quite laid back. I've always been paranoid about roads though but that's mainly because my dad was run over crossing the road when i was 17. But it meant that I taught my chidren very strictly about road safety rather than stopping them crossing roads.

Re Disney when The Little Mermaid came out I took the dds to see it and they were terrified, accusing me of being nasty mum for taking them. Totally irrelevantly we once took a friends little boy on an off road land rover course and he said afterwards it was the worst experience of his life.(unfortunately he was staying with us for a few days so no mum to comfort him)

I ave to admit we were fortunate in that ds leanrt quite quickly. We barricaded the sairs for a while with a blanket box, until we were confident about his ability. We tried to teach him ro go down the "safe" way - ie backwards, on his tummy, but he insisted on bum shuffling down. After watching him a few times, we relasied he was extremely cautious, always leaning WELL back before shuffling foward to drop down a step, so we let him get on with it.

I agree about not wanting to supervise. We do allow ds to go out in the garden on his own - but probably wouldn't feel the same if there were a pool (our neightbours - no boundary fence - took out their pool when he was a baby).

But even there, some people might be horrified, as we have an open driveway on to the road - but ds know he is not allowed on to the pavement and rarely goes down the driveway anyway (and then only if we are in the front garden too). We can't block it off, as our only door is onto the driveway. (We live on the upper floors of a big Vicotrian house that has been split in two). What I do do is always check when ds goes out on his own that I can see that he has gone in to the garden.

By garden, I mean the BACK garden.

I think it's a lot to do with the children's individual personalities as well. I know that if I tell my DS not to do something because it is dangerous, he won't do it; whereas my DD will. And that's not just because of the age difference (he's older), it is temperament. He is just far more cautious and obedient than she is, and she is just far more adventurous and fearless. And that also has an influence on what risks I allow each to take.

Why can;t we just keep our kids away from stuff or take the danger away until they are old enuogh to understand when you tell them why they must not touch or go near things - thats what I do so DD knows the danger without being put in any!!

I have been reading your comments Janz and agree with your method's.

We live in a pedestianised area and there is no fence between our front and back garden. We allow our dd (4) to go out on her bike and she is allowed to play outside on her own. She has boundrys which she knows and more importantly respects.
We leave the back door open for her and she wonders in and out as she pleases. We can see her 99% of the time as our lounge is double aspect and we can see both gardens but she feels she has freedom to wonder around without being watched like a hawk. Because of this I have found she is much more aware of her surroundings than other children her age.