or Connect
Mothering › Mothering Forums › Mom › Women's Health  › 103 fever in 6.5 month old WWYD? UPDATE post #52
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

103 fever in 6.5 month old WWYD? UPDATE post #52 - Page 7

post #121 of 222
I would continue on with the antbx as prescribed and call the ped's answering service tomorrow morning. He or she has to have someone as backup and they can deal with it.
post #122 of 222
Your baby needs to finish the antibiotics. You can't just stop a course halfway through - it opens your baby up to an even worse case of pnumonia (and he'll have to have stronger abx for it, which will cause an even worse rash).

Since it responded so well to the abx it was probably bacterial.
post #123 of 222
Yes, finish what you have, and call the doc as soon as possible. Let him know you started it, how many he took, how many days between stopping and starting - every detail. He needs to be closely monitored to make sure the bacteria doesn't return worse then before.
post #124 of 222
Quote:
Originally Posted by graceomalley View Post
Your baby needs to finish the antibiotics. You can't just stop a course halfway through - it opens your baby up to an even worse case of pnumonia (and he'll have to have stronger abx for it, which will cause an even worse rash).

Since it responded so well to the abx it was probably bacterial.
I agree. If you need medical advice call the doctor who diagnosed the pneumonia and prescribed the antibiotics, I don't think anyone here is qualified to give medical advice in regards to treating pneumonia.
post #125 of 222
If your doctor is away till Monday, is there a nurse's hotline you can call in your area to ask about the abx? What is the name of the antibiotic?
post #126 of 222
Thread Starter 
zithromax....it is a 5 dose abx...take one dose a day for 5 days...doc said it stays in system for 10 days.
post #127 of 222
To Mamato3wildponie,

I am *very* thankful that you appropriately sought medical treatment for your young child. It was warranted, and you listened to your motherly instinct!

In the past, I also have avoided fever reducers, until my son had a febrile seizure....that was one of (if not the) scariest day of my life! O.O

Now, I treat high fevers or when they seem uncomfortable. And, my children have all still managed to build healthy immune systems inspite of occasional Tylenol use.

Moderation and balance....

Blessings,
Rebecca
post #128 of 222
Thread Starter 
Thank you.
Here is a website that suggests viral pneumonia...one must read the whole article or scan about 1/4 to the bottom and read the section...preschool-aged children...it lumps children 4 months to 5 years in this catagory.....http://www.aafp.org/afp/20040901/899.html
Also suggest that bacterial pneumonia is comes with a sudden onset, as a viral case comes after viral symptoms....which my little one had...he had a runny nose..slight cough for about a week before the fever...and then 4 days after fever started the chest x-ray was done.
The day of the x-ray my baby did not have a fever any more...it had broke in the night...(the night before i took him back in)....he woke up in a cold sweat and the fever was gone. So then the next day i took him in because he was still coughing bad and the wheezing seemed to be worse.
SO i guess i'm wanting to understand how is it that his fever broke..no fever..and the pneumonia was there...if it was bacterial wouldnt the fever still be present?
The website also suggests treating both bacterial and viral with abx...in younger children.
I'm guess i'm searching for info to give me a better understanding whether or not this is viral or bacterial.
I have a call in to the doc's office already...
post #129 of 222
A fever is not always present with a bacterial infection. My oldest DD has had many infections, but only one or two fevers in her entire life (and even those were very mild - 101 at the most and short lived)
post #130 of 222
Quote:
Thank you.
Here is a website that suggests viral pneumonia...one must read the whole article or scan about 1/4 to the bottom and read the section...preschool-aged children...it lumps children 4 months to 5 years in this catagory.....http://www.aafp.org/afp/20040901/899.html
Also suggest that bacterial pneumonia is comes with a sudden onset, as a viral case comes after viral symptoms....which my little one had...he had a runny nose..slight cough for about a week before the fever...and then 4 days after fever started the chest x-ray was done.
The day of the x-ray my baby did not have a fever any more...it had broke in the night...(the night before i took him back in)....he woke up in a cold sweat and the fever was gone. So then the next day i took him in because he was still coughing bad and the wheezing seemed to be worse.
SO i guess i'm wanting to understand how is it that his fever broke..no fever..and the pneumonia was there...if it was bacterial wouldnt the fever still be present?
The website also suggests treating both bacterial and viral with abx...in younger children.
I'm guess i'm searching for info to give me a better understanding whether or not this is viral or bacterial.
I have a call in to the doc's office already...
BACTERIAL PNEUMONIA DOES NOT ALWAYS CAUSE A FEVER. This is really important to understand, my daughter had bacterial pneumonia at 17 months and was VERY, VERY ill, she needed a week long course of IV antibiotics and then a two week course of oral antibiotics. She NEVER had a fever.

Unfortunately I have experience of both viral and bacterial pneumonia my daughter has had both, bacterial 3 times and viral once (she does have an underlying health condition) and in my experience it is not true that bacterial pneumonias always starts suddenly. It can start very quickly, or it can develop more gradually, sometimes after a viral infection as the immune system is lowered.

I really don't understand why you are so concerned about giving antibiotics if they are making your baby better. A short course of antibiotics is not going to be harmful in any way. Anitibiotics are over-prescribed but they are also lifesavers, my DD would almost certainley have died without them.

Also, and please correct me if I'm wrong, did you say your LO has pneumonia in her right upper lobe? I have been told (by a pediatric consulutant) that lobal pneumonias are nearly always bacterial.

Does it matter if its bacterial or viral??? I would always give antibitics for pneumoni, just in case, bacterial pneumonia can get VERY bad, VERY quickly. Trust me on this one.
post #131 of 222
Quote:
Originally Posted by cat2116 View Post

I really don't understand why you are so concerned about giving antibiotics if they are making your baby better. A short course of antibiotics is not going to be harmful in any way. Anitibiotics are over-prescribed but they are also lifesavers, my DD would almost certainley have died without them.
I agree. I don't understand why you are agonizing about the abx so much. Just finish the course. Or at the very least, take your child to an MD today and get their opinion.
post #132 of 222
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mamato3wild ponnie View Post
zithromax....it is a 5 dose abx...take one dose a day for 5 days...doc said it stays in system for 10 days.
Zithromax is awesome. I remember when it first came out. Before then it was a really long course of amoxicillin for ear and other infections and kids just didn't do so well on it! Viral pneumonia wouldn't have responded to the abx. He would likely be still very sick if it was viral. Maybe better, but not much better like you report. You can safely assume it's bacterial just based on that. Going on that, now think about the low amount of abx he's gotten and how it's only killed the weakest bacteria, allowing him to seem better, but there's still bacteria in there. It's more important for him to get them JUST IN CASE. It will not harm him to get abx even if it were viral. The side effects will clear up, his system will be fine.
post #133 of 222
I'm concerned that not everyone knows the importance of finishing courses of antibiotics once started. I thought that was pretty common knowledge. I guess doctors/ pharmacists aren't stressing that enough?
post #134 of 222
Quote:
Originally Posted by BugMacGee View Post
I'm concerned that not everyone knows the importance of finishing courses of antibiotics once started. I thought that was pretty common knowledge. I guess doctors/ pharmacists aren't stressing that enough?
I find that they don't stress it nearly enough considering how important it is!! It should be printed in giant RED letters on every bottle with a big warning sign.
post #135 of 222
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mama Dragon View Post
Zithromax is awesome. I remember when it first came out. Before then it was a really long course of amoxicillin for ear and other infections and kids just didn't do so well on it! Viral pneumonia wouldn't have responded to the abx. He would likely be still very sick if it was viral. Maybe better, but not much better like you report. You can safely assume it's bacterial just based on that. Going on that, now think about the low amount of abx he's gotten and how it's only killed the weakest bacteria, allowing him to seem better, but there's still bacteria in there. It's more important for him to get them JUST IN CASE. It will not harm him to get abx even if it were viral. The side effects will clear up, his system will be fine.
:
post #136 of 222
I'm just starting to read the thread. But, here are a few of my old posts about fevers, antibiotics, and antibiotic induced diarrhea, and alternative treatment options.

http://www.mothering.com/discussions...r#post13182649
http://www.mothering.com/discussions...ghlight=damage
http://www.mothering.com/discussions...ighlight=fever
http://www.mothering.com/discussions...r#post13380198
http://www.mothering.com/discussions...r#post13380198

I am concerned with the duration of the illness with such a young child, since your OP is dated 10 days ago. I'll go read some more of the thread.


Pat
post #137 of 222
I'm really glad you posted this and thank you to everyone for the info. I have found myself in this exact situation so many times, (twice with my older son when he was an infant - he's now 5yo, and 3 times my now 2-year old, the first time he was only 8 months old). They had the cough and wheezing, sometimes a fever, I take them to the doc only to get a note for work and they were diagnosed with pneumonia each time, (never via x-ray though). They were prescribed abx each time. I gave it for a day or two, they got better so I never finished the abx. I had no idea it was a bad idea. (The chest infection - whatever it was - never came back).

My 2 year old was diagnosed with pneumonia two more times this past winter (again, no chest xray) and I didn't even bother with the abx - just chiro visits, chest clapping, steamy baths, cold air, nursing, humidifier, etc.).

My chiropractor says that MDs are not generally used to breast-fed babies who are not vaccinated and who generally have strong immune systems, so they tend to over-prescribe abx. However, if I do use them in the future, I'll be sure to finish the dose. Thank you for this info!

OP, I hope your wee one is doing better. It is so scary and exhausting when they are that sick at such a young age.
post #138 of 222
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mama Dragon View Post
If "nature knew best", nature would know how to make all organisms live in harmony so we don't have MRSA attacking us. Nature just is. It doesn't know anything.
Ummm...we didn't have MRSA before we were an antibiotic-mongering culture. Natural antibiotics, natural antifungals, natural antiparasitics, natural antimicrobials have been around for eons. Same with microbials in our soil and environment. The mass commercialization of chemicals in our food and "medicine" is relevant to the development of MRSA, IMO.


Pat
post #139 of 222
Quote:
Originally Posted by hummingmom View Post
While I appreciate the sentiment behind this post (and certainly don't intend to criticize the OP for seeking conventional medical treatment for a baby with pneumonia), I have to disagree strongly with the idea that's implied, i.e., that alternative medicine is somehow a lightweight option that's ineffective or inappropriate for truly serious problems. Having just read through this thread for the first time, I've noticed that "alternatives" have generally been presented in a very limited way. For instance, there have been references to things like Hyland's teething tablets, vitamin C, or just doing nothing and hoping for the best. To me, all of these would fall in the category of "home remedies." They may be helpful in many cases, but they're basically the alternative version of a dab of neosporin, an aspirin tablet, or some other simple and not-always-effective allopathic remedy. If you've tried them, and your child is still getting sicker and sicker, you clearly need to find something more effective, ASAP.

On the other hand, if we compare apples to apples... i.e., diagnosis and treatment by a skilled MD, vs. diagnosis and treatment by a skilled practitioner of an established alternative medical discipline... then the alternative approach is IMO a valid one, whether things are going "well" or "badly." Of course, there are some situations that are beyond the scope of these disciplines; nobody is going to be able to use homeopathy to re-attach a severed leg, or acupuncture to correct a congenital heart defect. But this is due to the type of ailment, not to its severity. For example, those who strongly support the homeopathic approach would rather choose an expert homeopath than an expert MD to treat an infection, even (or perhaps especially) if it were a potentially dangerous one. (Needless to say, it can be hard to find a real expert in any healing profession... which is why we would do well to form relationships with one or more trusted practitioners, before an emergency happens. Even if they can't solve the problem, they'll likely be able to refer us to someone who can.)

It seems as if a strong preference for alternative medical care -- even when our children are actually sick -- is somewhat of a minority view on this thread, and perhaps isn't even considered "respectable" by some people. That comes as a surprise, especially given the forum header:

Health and Healing is a forum for discussion that reaches beyond mainstream health care norms. It embraces the wide variety of natural and alternative healing modalities as well as necessary conventional medical care. To further this aim please use the term "health care practitioner" rather than "doctor" to embrace the reality that there are other professionals out there to consult for health care needs.


Anyway, just to add my 2 cents on the topic of medicating a feverish child: I'll do it on occasion (usually with ibuprofen), if he or she seems really miserable and nothing else is helping. I don't medicate for the fever itself, though I probably would if it stayed at 105 for a significant length of time. In that case, the medication would be my last step before going to the ER -- as it's the first thing they're going to ask about when you get there, anyway. And this does make sense, from a diagnostic perspective. A fever of 105 that's reducible to 101 with medication, is a very different beast from a fever that's still at 105 after medication.

It's also important to note that a fever "breaking" isn't the same thing as a fever going down due to antipyretics. When a fever is lowered artificially, the patient might seem somewhat relieved, but the illness itself is just as strong as ever. As a PP said, Tylenol can certainly make people more comfortable, but it doesn't cure anything.

When a fever breaks on its own, it's a dramatic change: the patient is immediately, noticeably better; and recovery is generally very rapid afterward. It's obvious what's happening, even without a thermometer. I've read about this many times in older books, but have only personally experienced it once, in the small hours of the morning after my son had been treated homeopathically for his croup. It was amazing to see, though also kind of scary. After the remedy, his fever (which had been moderate) started going up and up... and then crossed 105, and then... just as I was wondering if I should give him the Advil, or start packing up to go to the hospital... POOF, it was all over. His breathing went back to normal, his face relaxed and lost its flushed look, and he fell into a deep, restful sleep. Just like the old-time books said. And he hasn't had croup since.

: : :


Last fall sometime, ds (at age 7) had fever, diarrhea, vomiting, lethargy for about 24-48 hours. Temp max 104, up and down to 102. At about 48 hoiurs, we gave a homeopathic remedy specifically for those symptoms and he was significantly improved, and got up to play and fever went down. Part of the symptom picture when choosing a remedy were that he had no thirst at the time. It was amazing, literally, just after the remedy he said "I'm thirsty" and drank a whole glass of water and kept it down!

When fever, diarrhea, vomiting and lethargy resumed about the same time 24 hours later, again I dosed the homeopathic remedy and he felt better within an hour and fever was no longer present. He no longer had symptoms. Perhaps, it had "just run its course"; but the benefit to his fever, diarrhea, vomiting and lethargy were immediate.


Pat
post #140 of 222
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Women's Health
Mothering › Mothering Forums › Mom › Women's Health  › 103 fever in 6.5 month old WWYD? UPDATE post #52