103 fever in 6.5 month old WWYD? UPDATE post #52 - Page 11

[Mamato3wild ponnie]

I think it's best for me to not post here anymore....as this thread has taken a negative turn. I refuse to listen to anymore negativity.
Thanks to all the mama's who have been supportive and who listened when i need them to.
A

[Maeve]

Originally Posted by Mamato3wild ponnie

I think it's best for me to not post here anymore....as this thread has taken a negative turn. I refuse to listen to anymore negativity.
Thanks to all the mama's who have been supportive and who listened when i need them to.
A

How does concern=negativity? Nobody here is tryting to make you feel bad, we are just trying to stress how serious it can be and how esp. with infants, we feel it is best to err on the side of caution. Not everyone feels that way, I understand, but we at least wanted you to hear the other side.

[Mama Dragon]

Originally Posted by Mamato3wild ponnie

I think it's best for me to not post here anymore....as this thread has taken a negative turn. I refuse to listen to anymore negativity.
Thanks to all the mama's who have been supportive and who listened when i need them to.
A

You only took the advice of posters who gave you advice you wanted to hear. I really, really hope your DS doesn't have pneumonia because if it comes back, it's going to be harder to fight. I truly wish your son the best health. I hope this is the worst you have to deal with.

[WuWei]

I'm awed that folks believe that whatever broad spectrum antibiotic was prescribed is perceived to be the "correct" medication and panacea.

I trust the mama to listen to her baby, her heart, and to want what is best for her baby. We all make decisions based upon what we believe and what we feel is "best" for us, individually, in the moment with incomplete information. We are unable to be all knowing, including MDs. And the belief that physicians are all knowing, is dangerous, imo.

Assuming baby has bacteria A, and if antibiotic for bacteria B is prescribed, she is no better or worse for having not taken the antibiotic. Only if antibiotic B was indicated, is is useful. Antibiotics are not indicated for treating viral illness. I would want a more complete diagnosis before taking an antibiotic which could be *unnecessary* and *harmful*. I would seek further assessment IF baby is ill. Mama indicates baby is no longer ill. I don't recall the exact dates baby had the couple doses of antibiotics, but it is about a week ago. Seems that the situation is resolved.

I would be reluctant to fly within 4 weeks of a "diagnosis" of pneumonia, personally. And I'm still concerned that wheezing is not normal in a healthy infant. So, I'd seek an *underlying* reason for the immune system impairment.



Pat

[skai]

Originally Posted by WuWei

I trust the mama to listen to her baby, her heart, and to want what is best for her baby. We all make decisions based upon what we believe and what we feel is "best" for us, individually, in the moment with incomplete information. We are unable to be all knowing, including MDs. And the belief that physicians are all knowing, is dangerous, imo.

IMHO, the belief that individual feelings and "mama intuition" are unerring when making medical decisions is even more dangerous.

I wish the best for the OP's baby.

[BugMacGee]

Originally Posted by WuWei

I'm awed that folks believe that whatever broad spectrum antibiotic was prescribed is perceived to be the "correct" medication and panacea.

I trust the mama to listen to her baby, her heart, and to want what is best for her baby. We all make decisions based upon what we believe and what we feel is "best" for us, individually, in the moment with incomplete information. We are unable to be all knowing, including MDs. And the belief that physicians are all knowing, is dangerous, imo.

Assuming baby has bacteria A, and if antibiotic for bacteria B is prescribed, she is no better or worse for having not taken the antibiotic. Only if antibiotic B was indicated, is is useful. Antibiotics are not indicated for treating viral illness. I would want a more complete diagnosis before taking an antibiotic which could be *unnecessary* and *harmful*. I would seek further assessment IF baby is ill. Mama indicates baby is no longer ill. I don't recall the exact dates baby had the couple doses of antibiotics, but it is about a week ago. Seems that the situation is resolved.

I would be reluctant to fly within 4 weeks of a "diagnosis" of pneumonia, personally. And I'm still concerned that wheezing is not normal in a healthy infant. So, I'd seek an *underlying* reason for the immune system impairment.



Pat

Unfortunately, cultures and sensitivities take time 48-72 hours in some cases. Meanwhile, baby is getting sicker. You treat with broad spectrum first, then once the c&s comes back, you can treat more specifically. It's not that the broad spectrums don't work, they just kill ALL the bacteria. And the c&s require blood, urine, spinal fluid, in this case, maybe sputum, or whatever happens to be the infection sourse.

[WuWei]

Unfortunately, cultures and sensitivities take time 48-72 hours in some cases. Meanwhile, baby is getting sicker. You treat with broad spectrum first, then once the c&s comes back, you can treat more specifically. It's not that the broad spectrum don't work, they just kill ALL the bacteria. And the c&s require blood, urine, spinal fluid, in this case, maybe sputum, or whatever happens to be the infection source.

Ummm...not exactly. C&S do take time. A broad spectrum antibiotic doesn't kill ALL bacteria; or we wouldn't need so many different antibiotics, if one killed all and every type of bacteria. Unfortunately, there ARE antibiotic-resistant bacteria, precisely BECAUSE of over-prescribing of unnecessary broad-spectrum antibiotics, by MDs.

C&S of urine is not indicated for respiratory illness. Blood and spinal cultures are not indicated on outpatient basis. "Meanwhile, baby is getting sicker" is speculative, not based in OP's experience. Yes, it is beneficial to get C&S based on infection source, we agree.

There are many alternatives for treating respiratory illness other than antibiotics. I would not treat with antibiotics as the first alternative, BECAUSE I don't want to be feeding antibiotics to bacteria unnecessarily and CAUSING the bacteria to become antibiotic-resistant, in my child or myself.


Pat

[Scullery]

Originally Posted by WuWei

C&S of urine is not indicated for respiratory illness. Blood and spinal cultures are not indicated on outpatient basis. "Meanwhile, baby is getting sicker" is speculative, not based in OP's experience. Yes, it is beneficial to get C&S based on infection source, we agree.

C+S of urine is SOP for sick infants, blood and spinal cultures for infants seen in ERs. Infants are not little adults, their illness patterns are unique to their age and development, and not entirely comparable to research on adults.

To the OP, I understand wanting to bow out of this thread. My comments have been based entirely on love and concern for your little boy. I hope you finished the antibiotic course and he continues to thrive.

[polyhymnia]

Originally Posted by WuWei

I'm awed that folks believe that whatever broad spectrum antibiotic was prescribed is perceived to be the "correct" medication and panacea.

I trust the mama to listen to her baby, her heart, and to want what is best for her baby. We all make decisions based upon what we believe and what we feel is "best" for us, individually, in the moment with incomplete information. We are unable to be all knowing, including MDs. And the belief that physicians are all knowing, is dangerous, imo.

Assuming baby has bacteria A, and if antibiotic for bacteria B is prescribed, she is no better or worse for having not taken the antibiotic. Only if antibiotic B was indicated, is is useful. Antibiotics are not indicated for treating viral illness. I would want a more complete diagnosis before taking an antibiotic which could be *unnecessary* and *harmful*. I would seek further assessment IF baby is ill. Mama indicates baby is no longer ill. I don't recall the exact dates baby had the couple doses of antibiotics, but it is about a week ago. Seems that the situation is resolved.

I would be reluctant to fly within 4 weeks of a "diagnosis" of pneumonia, personally. And I'm still concerned that wheezing is not normal in a healthy infant. So, I'd seek an *underlying* reason for the immune system impairment.



Pat

I somewhat agree with you, but once she started giving the baby antibiotics, to me she is obligated to continue to do so. If she didn't want to, she shouldn't have started them. Full stop.

[BugMacGee]

I have a lot of experience with infants with pneumonia. We don't usually know the pathogen causing it right away. Time is critical with these kids. If it is bacterial and we've awaited 48 hours for the cultures to grow to start treatment, well, let's just say that that's way too long. And often, there are secondary bacterial infections.

So, in some cases, the antibiotics may in retrospect be "unnecessary" but who wants to take that chance just to avoid antibiotics?

I too hope that the OP's little one is doing well.

[TCMoulton]

Originally Posted by WuWei

Assuming baby has bacteria A, and if antibiotic for bacteria B is prescribed, she is no better or worse for having not taken the antibiotic. Only if antibiotic B was indicated, is is useful. Antibiotics are not indicated for treating viral illness. I would want a more complete diagnosis before taking an antibiotic which could be *unnecessary* and *harmful*. I would seek further assessment IF baby is ill. Mama indicates baby is no longer ill. I don't recall the exact dates baby had the couple doses of antibiotics, but it is about a week ago. Seems that the situation is resolved.

The problem is that the OP decided not to have bloodwork done on her child so how exactly were the Dr's to determine which antibiotic was the right one.

OP - no one here was trying to attack you, they were only trying to help you understand the serious nature of your son's illness. Sometimes it is hard to hear advice when it is not what you were hoping for but every single poster here only has the best interest of your son in mind with their messages. My DH is still recovering from bacterial pneumonia that he was diagnosed with over 10 days ago. While you maay dislike using antibiotics the alternate is much much worse.

If nothing else please make sure that your child is given a clan bill of health from a Dr before you board a plane.

[WuWei]

I have a few dead horses which I choose to beat. The MYTH and FEAR associated with discontinuing UNNECESSARY antibiotics, in the event of improperly prescribed (viral illness), or excessive diarrhea (antibiotic induced diarrhea-which could be dangerous C. difficile overgrowth), is one of them. There is no "rule" or "obligation" to continue an UNNECESSARY antibiotic "once started". That just *further* sensitizes bacteria to the antibiotic, INCREASING the risk of developing antibiotic-resistant bacteria in your child, or in your own gut.

I fully support consulting or notifying the prescribing physician to discuss follow-up, if antibiotics are started and need to be discontinued.

However, it is NOT "harmless", and is potentially dangerous, to continue the same antibiotics with excessive diarrhea, due to dehydration and electrolyte imbalance risks, especially with an infant pooping 42 times in three days. Greater than SIX diarrhea stools in a 24 hour period should be reported to the prescribing physician, and NOT continue the antibiotic blindly due to some perceived "obligation".

Children get upper respiratory infections on average 6-8 times per year. The healthy body can recover from bacterial and viral illnesses, without antibiotics.

"Pneumonia" is a subjective diagnosis, not one which is black or white, without more complete testing and clinical data.

Unnecessary antibiotics ARE dangerous! Antibiotics damage the integrity of the microbial balance in the gut. The healthy gut microflora is 70-80% of the immune system. Impaired immune systems are less effective at healing the body.

Question antibiotics. Do not continue them blindly.

[/rant]
Pat

[Mama Dragon]

Originally Posted by WuWei

Unnecessary antibiotics ARE dangerous! Antibiotics damage the integrity of the microflora in the gut.[/B]
Pat

Technically, necessary antibiotics aren't great for the gut either.

To keep it short:
Baby comes in sick, diagnosed with pneumonia (based on symptoms and xray). Do you wait 12, 24, 48, 72 hours to make sure it's bacterial, risking the baby's LIFE, or treat, risking having to repair the gut? Cause the gut can be repaired. Dead babies can't. A baby with pneumonia might not have 12 hours to try homeopathic/natural methods on while you wait on cultures, or even 6 hours.

If there is a life threatening diagnosis, it's always better to err on the side of caution. Even if it mean the baby/person might get unnecessary antibiotics.

I'm talking pneumonia here - not simple or easy to treat infections. Pneumonia is very dangerous and waiting (or forgoing) antibiotic treatment is more dangerous yet.

[alegna]

Originally Posted by WuWei

I have a few dead horses which I choose to beat. The MYTH and FEAR associated with discontinuing UNNECESSARY antibiotics, in the event of improperly prescribed (viral illness), or excessive diarrhea (antibiotic induced diarrhea-which could be dangerous C. difficile overgrowth), is one of them. There is no "rule" or "obligation" to continue an UNNECESSARY antibiotic "once started". That just *further* sensitizes bacteria to the antibiotic, INCREASING the risk of developing antibiotic-resistant bacteria in your child, or in your own gut.

Slightly OT, but do you have links about this? I thought I had read that once you start antibiotics, even if not needed, they should be finished because of all the bacteria that we are usually colonized with that are not usually harmful, but can sometimes be. I thought that part of the concern was making THOSE resistant as well. But I well could be wrong. I would love to have more info on this.

thanks!

-Angela

[cat2116]

A baby with pneumonia might not have 12 hours to try homeopathic/natural methods on while you wait on cultures, or even 6 hours.

I agree, or you may get to the stage my DD was, on a ventilator and IV antibiotics.

I really wish your baby all the best, but please be aware, pneumonia can be very serious, I'm not saying it is 100% of the time, but it can be.

[pumpkinhead]

Originally Posted by WuWei

<snip>There is no "rule" or "obligation" to continue an UNNECESSARY antibiotic "once started". That just *further* sensitizes bacteria to the antibiotic, INCREASING the risk of developing antibiotic-resistant bacteria in your child, or in your own gut.
Pat

With respect, this is innacurate. Bacteria do not become "sensitized" to antibiotics. They are either incompletely or completely susceptible to the antibiotic or they are not. Antibiotic resistance occurs when a population of bacteria are incompletely killed by an incomplete course of antibiotics.

Just like any population, there are bacteria in any given bacterial population that are more susceptible to an abx than others. When you start a course of antibiotics, the most susceptible are killed off first and the less susceptible take longer. If you do not take the antibiotic long enough to kill the less susceptible, those are left at the end of the treatment. These grow and produce a new population of less susceptible bacteria. One or two may develop complete resistance and this complete resistance can be transfered by a variety of ways (plasmid transfer etc) so that the entire population is now resistant to the drug.


Completing a full course of antibiotics does not increase the chances of microbial resistance.

I do agree that if a particular antibiotic is making an individual very ill and it has been determined that the abx was not necessary in the first place, it may be beneficial to stop taking the drug. The pros and cons of this must be carefully weighed before proceeding though.


OP, I hope your baby makes a speedy recovery. In a child that young, I would not hesitate to give antibiotics for confirmed pneumonia.


ETA: In terms of pneumonia, it's usually not ever a choice between antibiotic A and antibiotic B and only one or the other will work. Generally a broad spectrum antibiotic that covers most causative agents implicated in bacterial pneumonia it the first course of treatment. IF the infection does not respond to the broad spectrum, a swab/sputum sample etc. will be taken and a more specific causative agent will be determined if possible. In this case, a more specific antibiotic may be used.

[WuWei]

Ironically, I'm running out the door to do a presentation for our local Holistic group about probiotics. Please see the links about developing antibiotic resistance in post #141. http://www.mothering.com/discussions...&postcount=141


Pat

[pumpkinhead]

Originally Posted by Mamato3wild ponnie

To put it like this....My baby is not ill anymore....with in 2 days..of the pneumonia dx.... his cough and wheezing went away....he is happy, nursing well, sleeping well, playing well...am i supposed to sit here and wait for my baby to get sick again? No...he is fine...if anything comes up i will take action asap.
We are going to see the doctor on monday to get "that clean bill of health".
My baby is 7 months today, weighs 20+pounds...he is ok.

It's very possible that the antibiotics your baby did take were enough to kill most of the bacteria causing his issues. Stopping them may or may not have put him at risk. I hope he continues to improve!

[pumpkinhead]

Good links.

[alegna]

Originally Posted by pumpkinhead

Completing a full course of antibiotics does not increase the chances of microbial resistance.

Do you have a link with evidence to show this? My understanding is that even full courses, used as directed, absolutely contribute to the resistance issue.

-Angela