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.

Good point about Rhona, Aloha. I had loads of freedom in my seventies childhood during the summers spent in London, too, but it only made me feel more neglected. I did some silly things too, and haven't benefitted from doing them. I sometimes wonder why the advocates of loads of freedom stop where they do. For instance, if we made minature cars and taught children to drive at the age of 10, think what life-skills they'd be able to learn. Think of the sense of freedom they would have as they roamed 20, 50 miles away from mum & dad, able to get streetwise and road wise and ... of course, lots of them would be dead, but hey, they'd have had some adventures first, wouldn't they?!

Agree he shouldn't be allowed to have the kid at home til pond's filled. No one should IMO.

wonder if SS will get involved?

Agree he shouldn't be allowed to have the kid at home til pond's filled. No one should IMO.

wonder if SS will get involved?

And 'free range' children are not only at risk from abusive adults and their own wilder impulses. I was also a child in the 60s and 70s and suffered a lot of bullying when I was out playing. Large groups of children, lest unsupervised can turn quite nasty. Lord of the Flies might be an exageration but kids can be ruthless when no adults are around.

But on the other hand, Droile, where do the advocates of risk removal stop? Yes we could wrap them in bubble wrap and never let them out of our sight for a second and no, they wouldn't get hurt (provided we left their mouths & noses free) and yes they'd all survive but by word they'd be bored, stifled, maladjusted and poorly equipped for when we let them out at 21.

My point is that every one has their own personal level of acceptable risk. Not everyone's will be the same. Very few people will be at one extreme or the other and who is to say what the right level of risk is? There is plenty of middle ground and it's up to each individual parent to decide what is acceptable for their child.

I agree it's definitely up to each parent to decide on the acceptable level of risk. You look at your child, look at were they live, and decide what is and isn't ok.

When we were looking around for a house to buy, one of the major deciding factors for me was access to quiet roads, plenty of children playing out, and a good sized garden. Our house has all that plus a private wood at the back of the garden, fenced in, not accessible to any roads, where my sons and their friends can play.

Compared to many parents I let my sons take more risks than average - playing out from age 4-ish, letting the oldest go to the nearby supermarket without me (from the age of 8 years) - but I'd never say this is right or good generally and tend to keep quiet about it. I feel fine about my decision for my sons, (as does my dh) but I'd hate someone to be influenced in the smallest way by something I've done or believe in.

That's another thing I have against Frank Furedi. It's all very well him saying risk is healthy, but does he ever have sleepless nights wondering if some parent will lose their child after adopting his viewpoint?

'private wood' sounds fantastic for Enid Blyton-esque adventures ... I'm very envious.

roisin, the funny thing is that for months on end, the wood is not used by children at all then suddenly they all decide to build camps and play on the makeshift swing there and congregate there for a week or so, then move on again. Howverer, it's great when we have child visitors - it's a novelty for them.

Right now the children who can access it from their gardens - about 10 children in all - prefer to play in the street!!
dh and I had high hopes of waving off both sons for the day while they built complicated camps amongst the trees. It never really took off like that. Also, someone keeps throwing glass bottles into the woods - and all sorts of non garden rubbish can end up there, so I have to periodically walk round to clear up the most dangerous of items.

Interesting that this debate should come up now, I've just been having a conversation with my dd's (5 and 7.5) about this kind of thing. They like the idea of walking around the block on their own. As it's around the block, there are no roads to cross, and I have let them do it a couple of times, with strict instructions about not trying to cross, holding hands, not talking to anyone, not running etc. If I'm being honest, though, I think I'm more worried about what other people think about me allowing them to do it, than what can happen to them. I just can't get over how I could justify it to anyone if that 1,000,000 to one bad thing happened. Which is silly; as others have said on this thread - where do you draw the line? Bad things can happen when you're walking right next to them.

Today dd1 asked if they could cross one of the roads (a quiet one) and go a little further afield. I just don't feel comfortable with it - for the same reason, not because I don't trust them - so I said no.

We live 2 minutes walk from a lovely park, and I know they'll want to start going there on their own eventually. As I've explained to them, it's not that I don't trust them to be sensible, stay out of trouble and come home when I say, it's just that there may be other kids there who are not so sensible, and dd2 in particular is very easily led and all sensible thoughts go out of her head when she gets overexcited. I don't want to put the responsibility of dealing with that one dd1's shoulders - it's just not fair.
It's all so difficult, though.

My dniece (4) is desperate to be a "cheeky girl" - because she's sure that they're allowed to go into town on their own.

Emsiewill - I think you've hit the nail on the head; that's the issue that I struggle with most: the blame culture in the UK. The idea that if a tragic accident happens, someone is at fault. And we make decisions for our children based not on what is best for them at the time, but based on avoiding any remote possibility of that blame landing on us.

I feel exactly the same as you btw, in worrying what people might think. My two are 5 and 7 too, but dss. I allow ds1 to go out on short errands by himself, but not with ds2. (There is a short list of things ds2 is allowed to do.) But I find they are more likely to be daft together than individually, and though I would trust ds1 100% to cross any road round here safely; I wouldn't trust him to cross it safely with ds2, let alone be responsibile for ds2 crossing it safely.

I mentioned this story at my PILs the other day and they told me a tragic stpry of DH's grandad's neighbours. They had a young son - maybe 7 or 8. It was normal to le t the children out to play outside, roaming around unspurervised. He fell in the canal. Nonme of the children he was with could save him. He drowned. This couple are now in their 80s. They never had any more children. They have never gotten over the death of their child. They blame themselves every day - even now - that they could not save their boy. TBH, from what DH's grandad says they have never really continued living from the moment they were told he had died

I just can't take such risks - not if I can do anything to try and prevent them.

Tigermoth - I still think the wood sounds wonderful. We have a developing 'street culture' here too, which I love. There are now 12 children (almost all boys) in the street aged 5-9, (plus some toddlers) and they nearly all play out loads.

It's a fairly new thing, and we are just establishing some ground rules. I was thinking of a thread you posted on some weeks/months back on this subject. So far it seems to be working OK: I've told my boys what their geographical boundaries are (irrespective of anyone else's); they are allowed in other people's gardens if they are invited, but need to tell me first, (and are allowed to invite guests to ours); but they are not allowed to go into other people's houses, and vice versa. (That comes into a different sort of specific 'playdate' invite, not a free-for-all.)

Any other tips for avoiding strife and bloodshed?!

roisin, watch the way the friendships develop between the children, especially if new children join the group. Some combinations of children are not good and that can spell stress and danger, if the other child's ground rules are non existant and your boys start to copy them. I know I posted a long list of things I had learned about playing out somewhere. I don't know if you found that? whatever you decide, don't take my word for it - do as you think. I'm sure you would do anyway, but as I said I'd hate to think anything I do on this influences anyone else as the decisions are so personal. It's fair to say we have had some near misses - ie when ds1 was 5.5 some 8 year old boys persuaded him to cross a very busy side road to go to an off licence to buy sweets for them. We knew nothing about it till the owner of the off licence told us when he next saw us.

One thing you might find is that the playing out craze will subside. My oldest son rarely plays out in the street or woods now, despite boys knocking on the door asking him to play. He finds hanging around on the street boring and also the boys his age who do this all the time. He prefers to visit a few select friends or stay in if they can't see him. He will play football in a side road (pedestrained only) but has no big desire to roam around a bigger area, though he'd like to play football on the common with his friends. So far I have not let him cross the busy road separating us from the common alone, so unless a grownup is with them he can't do this. He has had pretty much the same 'patch' since he was 7 years old.

What riles me slightly is that I know there are two boys my sons age within a few doors of us (separate families) who never play out. My son knows them slightly and likes them. Bearing in mind these boys will all be starting secondary school in just over a years' time and probably travelling to school alone, it seems silly that they are not allowed out to mix with other children our quiet street. But perhaps they just don't want to go out? I don't know. Both families are very middle classs btw.

As an aside, I also wonder how some people see us around here. They know my sons and I are churchgoers. My sons go to a very hard to get into church school - not the local primary. Yet I let my sons play out in the street!!!

droile and anyone else that may be interested - your friends may be interested in a book called 'mourning has broken' its on amazon and the author has a website if you search google. she is a parent at my son's school who lost her 4 year old son through drowning. its a very different take on dealing with grief. just thought i would post in case it would be helpful to anyone x

Thanks shrub, I'll try and get hold of this for my friend.