103 fever in 6.5 month old WWYD? UPDATE post #52 - Page 4

[BoringTales]

Originally Posted by veganone

I'm so sorry LO is so sick. The dehydration would really worry me. What is your GP recommending to address that issue? Babies get sick. People get sick. Natural remedies are lovely, but they aren't 100%. There is a valid reason people sometimes need western medicine. Your child's health is more important than any ideal.

Exactly. There's also a reason that life expectancies have risen and infant mortality has fallen as medicine advances as well. YOU didn't give her this illness. Babies sometimes get ill. You do the best you can for them in the meantime.

[mamakay]

Originally Posted by babygrace

what is the basis of the above statement?

http://www.nytimes.com/2002/07/23/he...-bugaboos.html

FEVER -- The fear of fever among parents or what doctors have called ''fever phobia,'' has contributed to abundant use of children's fever reducers, acetaminophen, popularly Tylenol, and ibuprofen, or Motrin.

Many parents mistakenly believe that a high fever is dangerous, possibly leading to brain damage or seizures, and needs to be treated.

''The only time fever is associated with brain damage is when it's from an external source such as heat stroke from being locked in a car on a hot day,'' Dr. Brown said. ''Intrinsic fever is not associated with brain damage.''

http://adc.bmj.com/cgi/content/extract/89/1/89-a

Fever phobia is a term that was coined some years ago to describe exaggerated fears that parents have about fever in children. At the time the original research was done these fears included brain damage, seizures, death, coma, and blindness. Twenty years later many of these fears remain,2 leading to the possibility of over-aggressive treatment and unnecessary worry.

As there is no evidence that fever, as distinct from hyperthermia, causes any harm, therapy is usually aimed at promoting comfort rather than the aggressive pursuit of normothermia.

http://blogs.webmd.com/healthy-child...er-phobic.html

So repeat after me: fever is our friend, fever is our friend... It lets us know that an infection may be brewing, and, at the same time, it helps to fight off that infection. And that infection-induced fever doesn't go high enough (typically >106.5) to carry a risk of causing damage to the brain and body.

**********

Then why treat a fever?

The body's thermostat is rarely satisfied; it usually wants the temperature in the body to be a few degrees warmer than it is. That's why we feel cold or chilled when really we are already too warm. Hence, the main reason to treat a fever: to make your child feel more comfortable. Period.

[alegna]

Originally Posted by veganone

My question with the statements you quoted is that saying "fever is not dangerous" implies that no treatment is ever necessary when there is a fever. Sure, it's not the "fever" you treat, but the illness causing the fever MAY require treatment. And to just say "fever is not dangerous" implies that the underlying illness isn't either.

It's misleading at best.

I will say once more that fever can indicate serious health conditions that DO need treatment. The fever in and of itself is not dangerous.

-Angela

[PassionateWriter]

Originally Posted by BoringTales

Exactly. There's also a reason that life expectancies have risen and infant mortality has fallen as medicine advances as well.

actually, our life expectancies are falling.

[Scullery]

Originally Posted by alegna

I will say once more that fever can indicate serious health conditions that DO need treatment. The fever in and of itself is not dangerous.

-Angela

A prolonged fever can be very dehydrating, especially in young children.

We went through something similar with my son. It's rough when you're in the middle of it and trying to make the best choices. Thinking of your little one.

[alegna]

Originally Posted by Scullery

A prolonged fever can be very dehydrating, especially in young children.

You're correct- thanks for pointing it out. I was assuming good basic nursing care- but I tend to forget that many people are no longer aware of the basics.

-Angela

[Scullery]

Originally Posted by alegna

You're correct- thanks for pointing it out. I was assuming good basic nursing care- but I tend to forget that many people are no longer aware of the basics.

-Angela

Good basic nursing care? Do you mean tending to a sick baby or breastfeeding?

Babies tend to decrease their intake when ill, and depending on how high the fever is and for how long, their intake sometimes won't be enough to make up the loss of fluid just in respiration so you need to watch carefully for signs of dehydration. I learned this with my own child unfortunately, and now treat fevers if they are uncomfortable or it's been longer than 12 hours or so.

[alegna]

Originally Posted by Scullery

Good basic nursing care? Do you mean tending to a sick baby or breastfeeding?

Babies tend to decrease their intake when ill, and depending on how high the fever is and for how long, their intake sometimes won't be enough to make up the loss of fluid just in respiration so you need to watch carefully for signs of dehydration. I learned this with my own child unfortunately, and now treat fevers if they are uncomfortable or it's been longer than 12 hours or so.

Nursing as in caring for the sick- not nursing as in breastfeeding

-Angela

[formerluddite]

Originally Posted by Mamato3wild ponnie

UPDATE....originally took baby in on monday the 6th for high fever and wheezing and coughing....have been doing nebulizer treatments a few times a day...baby's fever broke wednesday night...he woke up sweaty. Still bad cough...he would start coughing and then it would turn into him crying because the coughing hurt...so it would be a vicious cycle of coughing and crying...we havent gotten much sleep at all this week. Today-thursday....baby's eyes are sunken in....he's lost half a pound...not smiling and active...not nursing well.
Baby overall was worse today than on monday....i took him back to our GP...who practices integrative medicine and holistic practices....he listened to the baby's lungs and said that his right lung sounds worse than the left and he was a bit concerned...as the baby did not seem to be any better.
We did a chest x-ray and the right lung showed pneumonia....i kept asking about viral vs bacterial...and he mentioned we could do a blood test to figure out which one....he also mentioned that in a baby this young ...he feels that we should treat right away...rather than wait and see...we've waited 4 days and it's gotten worse...i was almost in tears....as i had originally never wanted to take my baby to any doctors...i didnt want to give my baby medicine....i'm asking my self....what did i do wrong...did i not take care of my baby the way i should have...i feel so guilty right now....But i feel that he has to have the antibiotics and steriod....i am giving him a probiotic...plus i took him to our chiro who did did accupuncture today too.
I felt better after seeing our chiro....however i still feel so bad as a mommy that my baby is so sick.
I need some mama support yall.

i've been there with a 3 month old, tiny thing with an IV and O2 taped on. her snotty nose of a couple days suddenly (overnight) turned into 103.7, lethargic, breathing too fast (50-60 resp/min) to nurse well, O2 sats ~90%. thankfully the xray showed pneumonia (right upper lobe), so we avoided a lumbar puncture (but she did have a straight cath to check for a UTI ).

that night was the longest i ever spent, no room to nurse her in the chair pull out bed, so i crawled into the giant crib and hoped i wouldn't fall out to nurse her and cuddle up on and off through the night.

you will get through this, so will he. you didn't do anything wrong, illness happens. i second guessed every decision (should we have stayed home the day before? we went on a play date for her older sister, it was just a snotty nose...), but you can't live your life holed up in bed for every snotty nose.

i hope by the time you read this you are home again and he is recovering.

[BoringTales]

Originally Posted by PassionateWriter

actually, our life expectancies are falling.

Falling since when?

At THIS link there is a table, from 2001. The US has the highest life expectancy of any country listed, 77 years. Compare that to Africa where the average life expectancy is 54 years.

Since 1950 our life expectancies have actually been rising...(2nd table on the page linked earlier)

North America (U.S. and Canada)

1950-1955 ~ 69
1960-1965 ~ 70
1970-1975 ~ 72
1980-1985 ~ 75
1990-1995 ~ 76
1995-2000 ~ 77

Steadily rising...

Looks like western medicine isn't he big bad wolf some people like to make it out to be.

What's your source for saying they are falling?

[Mama Dragon]

Originally Posted by Th1Th2

Nature knows best.

:

Nature doesn't care if you die. Nature just goes along. Cycles and all that. Humans are given the tools to work with, and fight nature so we don't die "naturally". Nature doesn't have it out for any of us, but also doesn't try to help any of us out. 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.

/really tired of people leaving their health care in the hands and ideals of mumbo jumbo.

Alegna, post some links. YOUR links - the links YOU got your information from, please.

[mamakah]

Originally Posted by Mama Dragon

:

Nature doesn't care if you die. Nature just goes along. Cycles and all that. Humans are given the tools to work with, and fight nature so we don't die "naturally". Nature doesn't have it out for any of us, but also doesn't try to help any of us out. 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.

/really tired of people leaving their health care in the hands and ideals of mumbo jumbo.

Alegna, post some links. YOUR links - the links YOU got your information from, please.

Nature doesn't try to help us out?!?!?!?! EVERYTHING that you have and are is because of nature. You have food because NATURE has a system of taking a seed, germinating it, letting it grow, providing sunlight to it, providing rain so it gets water, creating little creatures and insects that will help it along (worms, bees, etc.) What would you have without nature? EVERYTHING in nature is planned perfectly. We humans have been messing with it for so long, trying to manipulate it, that we have royally screwed it up. As far as MRSA goes, it is on the rise BECAUSE of vaccination. Many organsims do work and live in harmony together. Then, after injecting toxins into the system and ingesting them through food, our body does not recognize some of those organisms as friendly anymore and attacks them, leaving you with the various problems we have now. Did you know the human immune system has HIB bacteria all around it. It recognizes it and brushes it off as a friendly bacteria unless that immune system is too over sugared. Then, it cannot recognize that as a friend and attacks it, with the Hib fighting back. So, technically, a disease we are now vaccinating for was once not a big problem when it was in natures hands. Enter in the egotistical human to mess that up with lab made food and sugars.
I am so tired of people not paying attention to the repercussions of trying to manipulate nature and the human body. Everything is interfered with these days. From the moment of conception to birth to natures intention for mothers to breastfeed, to the developing immune system, and on and on and on. And what do we have to show for it? A population of healthy and thriving humans? Quite the opposite actually. If you disagree with this, you should look at some of the latest health statistics. People are overweight and sick thanks to our disgusting food that is stuffed with pesticides, hormones, preservatives, you name it. We have fantastic ingredients like High Fructose Corn Syrup that does nothing but slowly kill us and it is in EVERYTHING! Childhood diabetes is on the rise. That is a fact. What is your theory on that? Is that nature finally deciding to plague these kids with such a disease? Or could it possibly be that they are fed bad food from the day they are born? Even parents with the best nutritional intentions get blindsided by some of the ingredients in food these days. Or better yet...could it possibly be the fact that we take a brand new baby with a pure body and shoot them up with aluminum, formaldehyde, various human and animal cells, protiens and DNA, etc.?
I could go on and on about this, but I have a 11 month old who desperately needs my attention. To be continued...

[anewmama]

If my daughter had had a 103 fever at 6.5 months that lasted more than 48 hours, I would have been at the doctor's or ER ASAP. I would not mess around with waiting it out, playing a guessing game on what is causing it. I would want to start to find out. I would also probably only treat in the case of no sleep. I feel sleep is so incredibly important that I would not allow a baby that young to remain feverish and with seriously interrupted sleep as in not sleeping in at least one or 2 blocks of time typical for your child. Or whatever is typically the pattern for your own child at that age. I would also include in my evaluate of the 24/48 hour period dehydration. It really is pretty impossible to do much with a young infant. At least in my experience with my daughter. The things I thought I would do to help her she wanted nothing to do with.

I think it's really important to remember that not every child is the same and a 103 fever in one child could be really bad whereas for another, it might be the norm and no big deal. I think it is hard to separate the fever from the underlying cause. If we all assume all 6.5 month's old have the same biological constitution, then one answer fits all would work. But what if a child has weak lungs, is developing pneumonia and has 103 fever? Versus a strong healthy lunged child with the same fever? If you look at the fever alone, you could be making a really bad decision on waiting it out as in waiting before seeing a doctor, not waiting it out on reducing the fever. The fever is just a SMALL symptom in knowing when to move on something. Assuming a high fever is always ok, is a bad judgement and even a distraction from what might be going on.

And in a baby so young, there could be some serious medical unknown conditions at that point where a 103 fever for over 24 or 48 hours would be a very bad idea for my comfort level. I would want to engage outside monitoring/experience help at that point. Now 103 in a 2 year old or 4 year old... many things apply but it's quite a different game, IMHO.

[lindberg99]

OP - I hope your baby is doing better today! Post an update when you get a chance.

[alegna]

Originally Posted by Mama Dragon

Alegna, post some links. YOUR links - the links YOU got your information from, please.

Mamakay posted great links!

She's a link godess. I rarely keep them after I read them.

-Angela

[lindberg99]

OP - I hope your baby is doing better today! Post an update when you get a chance.

[PassionateWriter]

Originally Posted by BoringTales

Falling since when?

Looks like western medicine isn't he big bad wolf some people like to make it out to be.

What's your source for saying they are falling?

i dont have time to search for research links but a quick google search came up w/ this article: http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/htm...fespan22m.html

there are a few more.

western medicine isnt the answer all the time. i venture to say it isnt the answer most of the time. i have attempted to convey my opinion in a respectful tone here but it seems there are some who just can not see the opposing viewpoint presented here.

there are MANY articles in Mothering supporting the apparent minority view presented in this thread.

[Mama Dragon]

sages... I had a hard time reading the block of text, please excuse me if I leave something out.

You seem to take what I said very personally. You also seem to think because I am fine with some western medicine, that I know nothing about alternatives?

Nature would do those things without us. Humans have died from nature since man kind came to being. It's not a sentient being that is there to serve us. Nature doesn't grow new because we want it to, it does it because that's just what it does. Nature was here before humans and will continue after we all die out. It's just there. It would be there if we left it alone and all died at 40 years old from infections and diseases (and yes, we would get them, man kind has been getting sick long before any medicines came to being), it would be there to evolve all on it's own and create new diseases without us mutating them, and it'll be there no matter what we do with it.

I don't vaccinate and don't agree with vaccines, but there are many drugs and procedures that prolong our life and give us the life expectancy we're seeing today. Without asprin, tylenol, antibiotics, surgery, etc we would be living much shorter life spans. Not all western medicine is out to make "the man" money....some is, sure, but not all. Shunning all of western medicine is foolhardy.

MRSA is on the rise because of of the overuse of antibiotics. I know MRSA pretty well, my dad lost his foot while under my care because of it. Unless you have real, valid links to back up your claim?

No, nature doesn't try to help us out. I repeat, it's not a sentient being. Scientists try to help us out. Big pharma gets in the way of that to make a buck, but it's us humans that are trying to use nature as a tool.

[PassionateWriter]

Originally Posted by Mama Dragon

:


/really tired of people leaving their health care in the hands and ideals of mumbo jumbo.

it may be mumbo jumbo to you, but for me, i get tired of ppl expecting me to "do something" just b/c there is a "chance" something bad could happen. most of us drive, we take risks every day. I prefer to gamble on the natural progression of things and allow my family to heal naturally....which they always have.

Originally Posted by sages

I am so tired of people not paying attention to the repercussions of trying to manipulate nature and the human body. Everything is interfered with these days. From the moment of conception to birth to natures intention for mothers to breastfeed, to the developing immune system, and on and on and on. And what do we have to show for it? A population of healthy and thriving humans? Quite the opposite actually. If you disagree with this, you should look at some of the latest health statistics. People are overweight and sick thanks to our disgusting food that is stuffed with pesticides, hormones, preservatives, you name it. .

thanks for posting that. i was beginning to wonder where i was.

[alegna]

Originally Posted by Mama Dragon

Without asprin, tylenol, antibiotics, surgery, etc we would be living much shorter life spans.

I agree wholeheartedly that western medicine has done many things to improve health and life-spans. Antibiotics have been a miracle in many situations. Surgery saves lives in hundreds of ways.

However, asprin and tylenol have done nothing to extend life spans. Are they useful tools? Absolutely. Do I use them? You bet. Do they save lives? Not really. It could be argued that asprin saves lives when used as a blood thinner. I can't think of a situation where tylenol could possibly be a life-saver.

-Angela