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 agree MeanBean. I know it won't last forever, but ds is actually a very good wee boy (I try to remember that when is he is tantruming at supper ) who, SO FAR, doesn't deliberately do things because we have said no. If he weren't the character he is, I might not be so comfortable.

Thnaks Angelpoppet.

But basically I'm just a lazy parent, and can't be faffed going out in the garden every time ds wants to!

Seriously though, we do like to think that we are encouraging his independence and as a result, he is an extremely confident and physically able kid. And we are a lot less stressed!

It is to do with character to a certain extent, but it's also about having the opportunity to learn, and to be free to plan and plot and play without constant adult interference. (I'm not talking about toddlers here btw.)

My boys play out on the street, with a number of children who are almost 5 or nearly 5. Of course it is not risk-free, of course there is some danger, of course they would be safer just in the gardens. But I feel they gain a great deal from having that freedom, and taking some responsibility. A number of parents keep an eye out for them (collective responsibility that JanZ mentions is sadly lacking these days), but no-one is constantly watching them like a hawk.

We have friends whose children very rarely walk anywhere, they always go in the car, because it's safer. As a result it is really dangerous to go for a walk with them, as they have no road sense at all. My ds1 is just 7, and he can cross any quiet road safely, and he knows how to use a pedestrian crossing on the busy roads. My ds2 is actually pretty good too, though he's not yet allowed to as he's only 5, and isn't very tall for drivers to spot him.

I was having a similar conversation to this at work the other day. We were saying we'd much rather be the relaxed parents who have trust with their kids. I'm sure you've all had one friend who has cooler parents than yours. this is when they are older of course but I'd much rather be the one buying them a bottle of booze for example and having them drink it at my house than sneeking off with friends - buying it illegally and getting blind drunk on a curb somewhere.
I don't think I'm being irresponsible by saying that - I think the parents that deny their children access to these things are more irresponsible.
Rant over now!!!

Along those lines Angelpoppet, my parents were forever embarassing me when I was 15 by telling me "Better safe than sorry..... the family planning clinic won't ask your age....." As it was, I was a virgin until I was nearly 22!

They also used to offer us wine when we were young - but I hated the taste of all alcohol until I went to Uni when I was 17 (and then, amazingly, managed to overcome my aversion!)

I much prefer to teach my DSs what not to do rather than take all the danger away. One day they'll have to go out in the wide world and I'd like them to be equipped to recognise and assess risk. that's not to say I'm carelss with their safety!

In our garden, I insisted the laburnum tree be taken out as it's poisonous. I can't remove every poisonous item from our garden or know that all other gardens are safe so DSs know not to eat anything from the garden unless DH or I (or other adult) have said it's safe to do so.

They're allowed to climb one of the trees in our garden - no doubt they could fall out of it and get hurt but I can't stop them and I won't take the tree out. If they get stuck, I don't just lift them down, I guide them so they know how to get down safely in future. One day, they'll want to climb the huge beech tree at the end of our garden and I'd like to be confident of their climbing skills when that time comes!

We did have a stairgate in our previous house, not to keep DS1 safe on the stairs (although he was a PFB so we were more protective!) but because the bannisters on the landing were ranch style and he could easily have crawled through and fallen the whole way to the ground floor. DS2 was taught to come down the stairs on his tummy and I'm annoyed that I didn't video it since he used to get from top to bottom in well under 3 seconds. He'd lie on his tummy at the top, lift his arms and feet up and go (feet first I hasten to add!)

I would agree that there is maybe more parent paranoia around now. Some of it is valid since, for example, there are more cars, they're faster and there are more parked cars obscuring views.

It is to do with character too though, I agree. DS1 is more inherently sensible than DS2 who is a bit of a loose cannon.

we have a similar attitude to your parents in our house JanZ.

If my dh and I are having an alcoholic drink in the evening we give my dd a "special beer". what it actually is is a glass of lemonade with a small drop of beer (for the authentic taste). Because of this when we are out with family or friends at parties or the pub our dd ask us if she can have a special beer. I've found all the other kids run round the table trying to sneek a sip of their daddies beer. Most of them are probably pie-eyed by the end of the evening.

Message withdrawn

lisalisa - I hope that you have windows in your kids bedrooms that they can get out of in case of fire - especially if they are double glazed as it is almost impossible to break one and leave yourself enough room to ge out!!

Soupdragon - I understand why you've removed the laburnum tree, but we've taken a different apporach.

There is a laburnum tree in our neighbour's garden (actaully, our chilminder, but the chilren never play out in the front garden), overhanging our garden. We will be teaching him NEVER EVER to touch them, even though they might look like peas, as they are VERY, VERY poisonous.

My memory from Primary School is that the couple of kids that did get poisoned by them hadn't been told about them and came corss them when visiting a friend.

Ds has just discovered the pleasure of eating from the garden, as we have a load of raspberry canes, but I am going to have to be careful to drum in to him that he is ONLY allowed to eat from SPECIFIC plants we have said are OK.

I still have laurel and yew trees though!

Just want to add to people that think water is safe if their kids can swim, my friend's child died last year in a garden stream. He could swim, he wasn't a toddler, he was old enough to leave for reasonable periods. He fell and knocked himself out near the water.
Water + children = NO WAY.

I've just looked at Hulababy's stats post and yes, it was in the summer holidays and yes, it was in a friend's garden rather than at home. He was also male. The surprising thing was that he was older than the usual pre-schooler.

I'm with Aloha and I also think Frank Furedi is crap. I've posted about this before, but when I was 11, my mum let me have the run of the west end of London while she was at work. I shudder to think of the things that almost happened to me, but comparing notes with my friend of the same age who was brought up in a sheltered country home, at 18, 20, 25, 30 etc I was not one jot more streetwise than her. Those early escapades hadn't benefitted me at all.

Frank Furedi gave a live interview on mumsnet a few years ago. See live events on the home page.

I believe in giving children some freedom. I let my sons play out. ONce they were sure on their feet as toddlers, I didn't hover over them when they went to playgrounds. I was ok about them taking small risks and having the odd tumble. But I don't ahve much respect for Frank Furedi.

He IMO gave some very generalised answers to mumsnetters' questions. I think many here could have answered them better tbh. Here's a bit of what I asked him....

Tigermoth .....'Have you any suggestions about positive ways of teaching him road safety, apart from ds attending a road safety course?

Frank: It is difficult to give specific advice because every thing depends on your relationship to your child....'

see what I mean...

Do take a look at the last question on Bosnia... not something you'd associate with a so called parenting expert.

Going back to the story, I too would have filled in, covered or fenced off the ponds. I wonder if the two ponds were impossible to make safe in any of those ways and the family decided they didn't want to move house?

Tigermoth - I wouldn't disagree with you about his live interview. I wasn't around at the time, but looking at some of the responses, I too would have found them dissatisfying and, as you say, some of us could have answered them better - using his own priciples.

Droile - that incidient is tragic. But you can drown in a puddle if you get knocked out. Are you going to stop children going out when it is wet? One of the sacry things about being a parent is that the world CAN be a dangerous place. Shit happens. But parenthood is about trying to put these risks into perspective - and I think that is was what Furedi, in his book, is trying to do (But I am only half way through Chapter 3!). I'm not saying it is easy though!

What i've found iintersting so far in the book is his observation about the loss of collective responsibility and fear of getting involved. For example the story of the child who was left with his head stuck in the railings for 80 minutes before his mother came and simply pulled him out. Although the teachers had put cream on the railings, they hadn't thought to try to pull him out themsleves. The teacher who told him this said that she didn't try herslef as she had already been told off previously for being "too physical" with the children in her charge.

Soupdragon - funnily enough, I'd probably have more problems with a yew tree and its berries than a laburnum. It just goes to show we are all different. Which reminds me, I MUST teach ds about the dangers of foxgloves, which we have a few of in our garden.

I don't think the fact that you can drown in a puddle if you get knocked out will be of much comfort to the friends whose stream caused the tragedy and who have been beside themselves since or, of course, the parents themselves. Freaky accidents do happen, but there's no need to help them on their way by putting water features where children play, IMO.

I myself don't get the - ooohhh I want my child to be more free spirited, have greater awareness of dangers etc arguement - I tell DD the dangers but keep her away from them and although she is teribly responsible and clever I would never leave her out in a garden or near a road (she is 4) as the risks are just tooo much - I would never be able to forgive myself if something happened to her and just don't understand this arguement at all??

Quite, Twinkie. I also can't understand his argument that 'only a handful of children are abducted, yet we all arrange our lifestyles around this insignificant risk...' If it happens to your child, it has happened 100%, and anyway, isn't it worth curtailing the freedom of 6 million children in order to prevent the death of one? To me, that one is infinitely precious and I would do almost anything to save him/her. Freedom is a wonderful thing, but life comes first. It's an extraordinary utilitarian argument that would disagree with that. I'm not advocating locking them away - my 5 yr old plays out in the garden by himself, but I watch him frequently and don't leave him for long periods. It would be nice to have him roaming the fields around our farm soon, but even nicer for him to keep his life.

I suppose the gist of my argument is that I don't think he'll come to much harm if I curtail his freedom a bit at the moment. I don't think he'll be mentally scarred for life and go into analysis because I refused to let him wander the fields when he was 5. I think I'll take that risk. I'd rather that than take the risk of letting him climb to the top of the slurry tower and fall in. And yes, he has had the dangers of the slurry tower explained to him, but his attitude is that he's a superhero and could fly out of it. He has similar delusions about his ability to dodge out of the way of traffic. Some things just have no margin for error.

I am a little sceptical about the idea that if you tell a four year old not to do something because it is dangerous, that a/they will truly, fully understand and b/they won't impulsively do it anyway because the part of the human brain that controls impulsive behaviour is very immature in a young child. You don't have to teach a child to avoid water at two to prevent them drowning at 15 - they are different people at different ages. I don't keep fragile objects on the floor, I don't give my son cut glass to play with and I wouldn't have a pond in my garden because my son is not yet three. To me the risk/benefit analysis is clear. A pond is alright, I suppose, if you like that sort of thing, but my child's life is everything to me and if he's dead, he won't be learning anything, ever. The risk is simply too great, and IMO pointless.
I read Rhona Cameron's autobiography about her 70s childhood in a small Scottish town, where she was free to roam without any parental supervision all day and into the evening. Idyllic? Not at all. She was drinking, getting involved in horrible, exploitative sex games with older boys, and all this made her incredibly unhappy and has damaged her into adulthood. I think it is possible to idealise the freedom to roam. Rhona's parents loved her, but had no idea what was happening to her. Looking back she agrees she would have benefitted from less freedom and more protection. I do not consider myself a 'paranoid parent' - I don't think about paedophiles all the time and would happily let my son run about naked on the beach if he wanted to, but then I don't care much about other people's sewer like minds, but I do care very much about my son's happiness and wellbeing (as we all do, of course). Remember Frank Furedi thinks that the harm sexual abuse does to kids is 'greatly exaggerated' - no wonder he doesn't think it's a problem for them to be out, unsupervised, from a very early age.

And yes I also had a seventies childhood where I spent all day out with my friends on my bike and wasn't murdered or abducted or anything. I'm not advocating house arrest for kids or anything

Message withdrawn

Good points Aloha and gglimpopo.
Also, I think our attitudes to relative risk is generably sensible. Very few of the houses in your town will be burgled tonight, but we'll all lock our doors. Very few car journeys end in crashes, yet we all (apart, I presume, from Furedi) put our seatbelts on for EVERY journey. I'm not advocating house arrest either, but the fact is, in the next few years, there will be a small number of paedophiles who will try to abduct our children. We can't know when they will strike, so to to a certain extent, we have to act like we do on the car journey and assume it might be this time, within reason. We can't prevent everything but within reason, where we can head off 'fate' by reasonable supervision, we do. I don't call that paranoia.
30 yrs ago few people wore seat belts - I think we've come a long way in the right direction. And when all's said & done, it's hard being a parent and sometimes you can't be bothered to watch them and let them take risks while you have a quick coffee. I think the coverage in the media on what can go wrong is just enough to keep us on our toes and make us go and look for them instead of having that extra 10 minutes.