Mothering Forum banner

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

30K views 221 replies 57 participants last post by  monkeybum 
#1 ·
My non vax's EBF baby has a fever of 103.1....he is 6.5 months and normaly healthy baby...he's had a few colds with runny nose...but nothing like this.
We flew on 4/2 and were on 2 different airplanes....before we left for our flights he had started a little bit of a runny nose and a slight cough....mainly saw those symptoms in the morning when he woke up and then by noon...no more symptoms....the past 2 days and nights he's gotten worse...still nursing good...just a congested cough that's wet....clear nasal drainage....today i noticed the temp and decided to check it and it was 102.1 under his arm...which you add one point and that makes it 103.1.
I've been giving him echineachea(sp) mixed with small amounts of breastmilk for the past 3-4 days.
Any suggestions as to what i should do next?
I just dont feel comfortable with the high fever....he's way above his weight on the charts...he's around 21 lbs or more.
 
#27 ·
Quote:

Originally Posted by alegna View Post
Fever is not damaging

Quote:

Originally Posted by alegna View Post
Fever is not dangerous.
This is wrong. To new mothers reading this, you must understand that the above is misinformation. Fevers CAN sometimes be dangerous.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bea View Post
It's not something I'd put up with myself and therefore, there's no way I'd do it to my baby. Just because they can't express their suffering doesn't mean they aren't experiencing the exact same unpleasantness we do.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jwebbal View Post
I have to agree with all of this. When a child is obviously suffering I don't see the purpose of withholding pain relief (which happens to bring down the fever as well).


Quote:

Originally Posted by alegna View Post
heh- I don't go to wiki for health info


More reliable sources say that the body won't let the fever go too high short of poisoning situations.

-Angela
Then please share your sources.

Quote:

Originally Posted by alegna View Post
Febrile seizures are scary, but they are not dangerous.

-Angela
During a seizure, there is a small chance that the child may be injured by falling or may choke from food or saliva in the mouth.

They CAN be dangerous. It is not common, but it is a possibility, and it has happened. Please do not make untrue statements as though they were fact.

Now, as to: WWYD? I use natural soothers, reducers, and immune support. Just various teas, tinctures, homeopathic remedies, etc. Feverfew, chamomile, catnip, astragulus (I think I may have spelled that incorrectly, hmm....) etc. For very young infants you can give them tea baths as well, which help, and taking herbal capsules will help deliver some elements through your milk. Also there are alternatives, such as acupressure and massage. And of course, tepid baths can help sooth their discomfort as well. I too believe that it's best for the human body to fever. My DH and I try to let all of our fevers go as far as possible, we give in to ourselves and our children (tylenol) anywhere between that 103 and 104 point, do to pain and suffering. It's just not worth it in our opinion.

I'm glad your LO is better!
 
#28 ·
Quote:

Originally Posted by LBMarie9 View Post
more questions about fevers...why do they say that you should see a dr after 60 hr or more? why is that? isn't the fever just doing the same thing all along fighting "soemthing" off if it's there a week?
A long-lasting high fever has a higher chance of being either bacterial or more serious and something underlying that needs medical attention.

-Angela
 
#29 ·
Quote:

Originally Posted by Make(. )( .)NotWar View Post
This is wrong. To new mothers reading this, you must understand that the above is misinformation. Fevers CAN sometimes be dangerous.

Evidence?

Quote:

Then please share your sources.
They've been posted here a hundred times. Search any medical site.

Quote:
During a seizure, there is a small chance that the child may be injured by falling or may choke from food or saliva in the mouth.

They CAN be dangerous. It is not common, but it is a possibility, and it has happened. Please do not make untrue statements as though they were fact.
That is a valid point. Something could happen during the seizure. For whatever reason, that seems to be particularly rare with febrile seizures, but is worth mentioning.

What I meant is that the febrile seizures themselves are not damaging to the child.

-Angela
 
#30 ·
Quote:

Originally Posted by LBMarie9 View Post
more questions about fevers...why do they say that you should see a dr after 60 hr or more? why is that? isn't the fever just doing the same thing all along fighting "soemthing" off if it's there a week?

my son had a fever 2 weeks ago for a week...I took him in finally at the end (in case it was something I should worry about him having my dd might get)--and they said it was VIRAL pnemonia--I put him through a stupid xray to verify since he's allergic/unresponsive to most antibiotics and I didn't want to treat unless I had to.

my DD has had the same thing this week--a fever for about a week (though it's trailed off and only slightly how the last couple days--she's acting almost normal again)--but it has been since last wed when she got her 103 fever...so was I stupid both times for waiting a week? (I'm not taking her in since she's getting better)--why is that so? (I'm sure I'll get a lot of different opinions)

the other reason I didn't just take them in was because we were on vacation and our only options were the ER.
i havent read all the threads here, but just wanted to ask what tests they did to confirm a viral infection? they can not tell whether something is viral or bacterial from an xray. yes, they can detect infection, but not the type.
 
#31 ·
{just a ?--what are the dangers in not giving a nebulizer? I mean --if my DD is congested =but obviously breathing enough (if she seemed to be working too hard I would take her right in)---but those treatments are sad crap- I gave them to my son- made him shaky and feel crappy.

is there some sort of damage that being weezing puts my child at risk for that I'm not thinking of--if i try my best to open up her lungs (bundled up in the night air) -? or is the only risk--that they stop breathing and/or have to work VERY hard to not get enough air.

(could I be causing my DD brain damage by letting her be congested and weezy a bit for a week?) }

Nebulizer question...........your childs blood oxygen level can lower if the child can not get enough oxygen in through his or her lungs....after prolonged amounts of time....i'm sure it's not a good thing...i dont have any info to back that up....however i know it's not a good thing to have prolonged o2 stats.
Also when the childs becoming distressed to breathe...blue lips...concaved chest...all signs that something else needs to be done asap.
A humidifyer helps with congestion...not sure if it would be enough to bring up o2 levels though.
 
#32 ·
Quote:

Originally Posted by alegna View Post
What I meant is that the febrile seizures themselves are not damaging to the child.

-Angela
There are symptoms to be mindful of if your child has a febrile seizure;

# Rush to the emergency medical facility in these cases:

* The seizure lasts more than 5 minutes.

* The child has serious trouble breathing or stops breathing.

* The child develops cyanosis (blueness of the skin) indicating insufficient oxygen in the bloodstream.
 
#33 ·
Quote:

Originally Posted by Mamato3wild ponnie View Post
{just a ?--what are the dangers in not giving a nebulizer? I mean --if my DD is congested =but obviously breathing enough (if she seemed to be working too hard I would take her right in)---but those treatments are sad crap- I gave them to my son- made him shaky and feel crappy.

is there some sort of damage that being weezing puts my child at risk for that I'm not thinking of--if i try my best to open up her lungs (bundled up in the night air) -? or is the only risk--that they stop breathing and/or have to work VERY hard to not get enough air.

(could I be causing my DD brain damage by letting her be congested and weezy a bit for a week?) }

Yes, the nebulizer treatments do have crappy side effects, but they are just temporary, whereas not treating the breathing difficulty will have much more serious long term effects. I have asthma, I wheeze, I cough, the wheezing, the coughing causes restriction in the airways, which in turn lower the oxygen levels. That is the immediate effect. The long term results of asthma, which even if your child doesn't have, the wheezing and coughing have the same effects. It can weaken the lungs, make them more prone to breathing problems/diseases and increased chance of contracting lung infections and pnuemonia.
 
#34 ·
Quote:
Originally Posted by LBMarie9 View Post
<more questions about fevers...why do they say that you should see a dr after 60 hr or more? why is that? isn't the fever just doing the same thing all along fighting "soemthing" off if it's there a week?>

A long-lasting high fever has a higher chance of being either bacterial or more serious and something underlying that needs medical attention.

-Angela
__________
Yes, basically the body cannot tolerate a long term assault and the risk of much more serious problems is higher, including death. Sepsis, which is a bacterial infection CAN kill and does. Think of Jim Henson, he died from sepsis. The organs of the body cannot tolerate long term fevers, assault from viral or bacterial infections, etc, etc. That's why it should be evaluated. There are weird things that can come up that we cannot recognize, that could be more serious than just a simple illness.
 
#35 ·
My cousin had febrile seizures and he stopped breathing during them and turned blue. The one time he would have died had his older brother not went in where he was sleeping and came back out and told his mom that he was blue.

So yeah febril seizures can kill.

I still dont buy that fevers dont cause brain damage and neither does my mother who had a perfectly healthy 8yo boy one day and after a 106 fever and rising he was never the same after. He had pnumonia at the time and had to be packed in ice at the hospital to bring it down.

I always treat a fever over 102 myself because of this.
 
#36 ·
http://uimc.discoveryhospital.com/main.php?id=946

Quote:
A fever greater than 106 degrees Fahrenheit can result in brain damage and death in some cases. This level of fever is hardly ever brought on by common illnesses. It can be seen in bacterial meningitis, in a rare reaction to anesthesia called malignant hyperthermia, or if a person is in a situation where he or she cannot cool himself or the body's temperature regulation mechanism has failed (heat stroke).

Quote:
You should always trust your instincts and the advice of your trusted medical provider. Never let information on this website or any website substitute for a qualified diagnosis and advice from your health provider, and don't delay treatment or disregard advice based exclusively on the stuff you find floatin' around. Be informed, and be prudent!
I think this website gives a good listing of possible problems with fevers. http://www.hippiedippiebebe.com/heal...ds-fever-cold/

There IS a danger with extremely high fevers. Basically it can be a sign of some sort of meningitis, which can damage the "thermostat" control of the body, the hypothalamus. That's why they can get such a high fever, normally the body won't let itself get that high, but damage to the hypothalamus can cause serious problems. Any fever above 105 should be evaluated immediately.
 
#37 ·
I think this part is important enough to quote again:

Quote:
You should always trust your instincts and the advice of your trusted medical provider. Never let information on this website or any website substitute for a qualified diagnosis and advice from your health provider, and don't delay treatment or disregard advice based exclusively on the stuff you find floatin' around. Be informed, and be prudent!
 
#38 ·
Quote:

Originally Posted by alegna View Post
Brains don't "cook" at fever levels. Febrile seizures are scary (and I certainly understand medicating fevers if your child has them) but they are not dangerous.

-Angela
Really? You are okay with people treating fever with Tylenol if they chose to? I've heard you say otherwise many times on this board. I'm happy that you are willing to understand why people chose to medicate high fevers.

 
#39 ·
Quote:

Originally Posted by LBMarie9 View Post
more questions about fevers...why do they say that you should see a dr after 60 hr or more? why is that? isn't the fever just doing the same thing all along fighting "soemthing" off if it's there a week?
Because most viruses resolve in a few days. If it goes on longer than that it may have progressed into a bacterial infection and require treatment. DD is just getting over a virus with a high fever (104.7) that turned into a raging ear infection and required abx. (Yes, I realize people here often don't treat ear infections - I had many as a child and won't let DD hurt like that if I can help it.) We were on day 8 of her fever when I took her into the ped. After about 36 hours she was feeling better and she's now almost 100% (and is eating again, thank goodness).
 
#41 ·
I medicate a fever with Tylenol if it's over 101.5
I know when it's that high, because my son automatically vomits (even if there is no stomach bug), and lays like a wet rag on his bed. He will not drink or eat anything.

So with the Tylenol:
1. He is not in pain or nauseous
2. He doesn't vomit, unless it's a GI bug
3. He drinks fluids! Which is a good way to keep him out of the hospital from dehydration.
 
#42 ·
My wife works in an ER, and is part of a team of people who save lives everyday. I think there is definitely a place for alternative treatments, especially for prevention, or for low level things. But when things get really serious, serious treatment is needed, and yes, sometimes that can get into life or death situations. I would hate to see someone lose a child, or have a child suffer permanent damage because they delayed appropriate treatment. I see people posting on this board, when if you were to ask me, their loved needs evaluation. It could be nothing, or not. Who knows?

I do think there are many natural ways to reduce fever, or to relieve pain, it just depends on the situation. I am not opposed to them, and I am concerned with the crap they put in children's tylenol products (and seek the ones with the least crap) as well. But sometimes our children might need a little more. I personally do not use homeopathic products, I have never found them effective for me or my family. Doesn't mean others don't find them useful.
 
#43 ·
Quote:

Originally Posted by Jwebbal View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by LBMarie9 View Post
<more questions about fevers...why do they say that you should see a dr after 60 hr or more? why is that? isn't the fever just doing the same thing all along fighting "soemthing" off if it's there a week?>

A long-lasting high fever has a higher chance of being either bacterial or more serious and something underlying that needs medical attention.

-Angela
__________
Yes, basically the body cannot tolerate a long term assault and the risk of much more serious problems is higher, including death. Sepsis, which is a bacterial infection CAN kill and does. Think of Jim Henson, he died from sepsis. The organs of the body cannot tolerate long term fevers, assault from viral or bacterial infections, etc, etc. That's why it should be evaluated. There are weird things that can come up that we cannot recognize, that could be more serious than just a simple illness.
To clarify- even in these situations, it is NOT the fever that damages or kills. It's the underlying infection.

-Angela
 
#44 ·
Quote:

Originally Posted by veganone View Post
Really? You are okay with people treating fever with Tylenol if they chose to? I've heard you say otherwise many times on this board. I'm happy that you are willing to understand why people chose to medicate high fevers.


Sure. I just maintain that there's no medical need to


And I advocate treating symptoms- if the child is uncomfortable or in pain, I'm all for lowering the fever to make them comfortable. As a general rule, I prefer ibuprofen to tylenol- tends to be more effective for pain.

-Angela
 
#45 ·
wow-some weird feelings between members here--

however--someone asked me what test they did to confirm it was a viral infection and I am not sure they did anything except the xray and the RSV snot test?!! he's feeling better--does that mean it WAS viral since a bacterial would need to be treated?

dang it--I was hoping that we cold confirm each time if it was viral or bacterial because--my son had chronic ear infections as a baby (until recently going off dairy)--and we gave lots of antibiotics--he is allergic to three different types and the others were unresponsive to any of his remaining ear infections--so I would like to find a way to know if I he needs to be treated--because if it was bacterial I would choose to give him one of the less allergic ones-the lesser of two evils if he did have bac pneumonia.

just let me clarify about prolonged fevers....
a fever at ALL over a couple days is a problem? or just a HIGH fever is a problem for that long? meaning if they have a high fever and it gets lower everyday however after 6 days they still are 100.something--this is a prolonged fever to be concerned about? I have known a lot of people to treat fevers (with tylenol) for this long before nad never had a dr say something..or is the problem in letting the child HAVE the fever?

sorry if that makes no sense--I just want all the ideas in my head when the times come as a mommy to make the choices for my kids' health.
 
#46 ·
Quote:

Originally Posted by LBMarie9 View Post
wow-some weird feelings between members here--

however--someone asked me what test they did to confirm it was a viral infection and I am not sure they did anything except the xray and the RSV snot test?!! he's feeling better--does that mean it WAS viral since a bacterial would need to be treated?

dang it--I was hoping that we cold confirm each time if it was viral or bacterial because--my son had chronic ear infections as a baby (until recently going off dairy)--and we gave lots of antibiotics--he is allergic to three different types and the others were unresponsive to any of his remaining ear infections--so I would like to find a way to know if I he needs to be treated--because if it was bacterial I would choose to give him one of the less allergic ones-the lesser of two evils if he did have bac pneumonia.

just let me clarify about prolonged fevers....
a fever at ALL over a couple days is a problem? or just a HIGH fever is a problem for that long? meaning if they have a high fever and it gets lower everyday however after 6 days they still are 100.something--this is a prolonged fever to be concerned about? I have known a lot of people to treat fevers (with tylenol) for this long before nad never had a dr say something..or is the problem in letting the child HAVE the fever?

sorry if that makes no sense--I just want all the ideas in my head when the times come as a mommy to make the choices for my kids' health.
The problem/ danger is NOT the fever itself. It's the possibility of what could be causing it. Personally I would worry about a *high* fever (for my kids that's over 104- we run high fevers) that lasted more than 2-3 days. I'd worry about a fever of any sort that lasted more than 5-7 days.

-Angela
 
#48 ·
Quote:

Originally Posted by Bea View Post
I just wanted to say, for the anti antipyretic crowd (tylenol etc) that a good going fever makes you feel like cr*p.

Personally, I'm not encouraged to allow my child to suffer by tales of near dehydration or semi comatose states. I'd rather treat the high fever ( tepid sponging, cool clothing, light bedclothes, medication) rather than stand by and cheerlead a state of misery.
i dont sit by and allow my child to suffer needlessly either but my children are generally laying on the sofa watching TV at 103 and 104..they are not dehydrated and semi comatose states. my son just went through a major bacterial infection and showed no signs of what you describe. However, his fever was instrumental in his cure. no, he didnt feel GREAT but he wasnt dehydrated at all...he nursed A LOT during that period.

Quote:

Originally Posted by LBMarie9 View Post

however--someone asked me what test they did to confirm it was a viral infection and I am not sure they did anything except the xray and the RSV snot test?!! he's feeling better--does that mean it WAS viral since a bacterial would need to be treated?

dang it--I was hoping that we cold confirm each time if it was viral or bacterial because--my son had chronic ear infections as a baby (until recently going off dairy)--and we gave lots of antibiotics--he is allergic to three different types and the others were unresponsive to any of his remaining ear infections--so I would like to find a way to know if I he needs to be treated--because if it was bacterial I would choose to give him one of the less allergic ones-the lesser of two evils if he did have bac pneumonia.

just let me clarify about prolonged fevers....
a fever at ALL over a couple days is a problem? or just a HIGH fever is a problem for that long? meaning if they have a high fever and it gets lower everyday however after 6 days they still are 100.something--this is a prolonged fever to be concerned about? I have known a lot of people to treat fevers (with tylenol) for this long before nad never had a dr say something..or is the problem in letting the child HAVE the fever?

sorry if that makes no sense--I just want all the ideas in my head when the times come as a mommy to make the choices for my kids' health.
bacterial infections don't NEED to be treated. It depends on the child and how his immune system is reacting (a good fever will kill almost any bacteria...anything that will survive in a 103/104 environment is pretty scarey stuff).

an Xray can not show whether an infection is viral or bacterial. as far as the RSV swab, if that is all they took, and that was negative, then no, you still dont know what the cause of his fever was. When i take the kids in to our dr (which is rare), i have them run a culture to determine what is causing the fever. I want to know that FIRST...before any "just in case" antibiotics. You CAN confirm each time what the infection is. But most dr. offices are not used to that being the course of action. Most offices will simply look at the sick kid and guess its bacterial and prescribe medicine. You have to be very proactive to get them to change the way they are used to behaving. Kids get better without antibiotics. They really do. I know that is blasphemy to some here...but its a simple fact.

Fevers are not really a problem..its more an indication of how your child's immune system is reaction to the underlying problem. A prolonged fever simply means its taking your child longer to win the war..he may need help. Increase vit. C and other things depending on what it is. A fever that comes and goes could also be a problem (a reason my kids recently went to the dr. office..which we don't normally do for a simply cold or flu).

there are 3 camps here, i think. one who use tylenol for anything and everything..one who will use it for a relatively low fever (or for a fever that is over 100, 101, or 103...people vary in their comfort level) and those who will not use it at all for fevers (i think for most of us, that includes a fever of 106/107 range). I fall into the later category. Ive never had a kid with 107 fever, so i dont really know what i would do. i would more than likely bring that fever down a bit...short of the 106/107 fever range, i dont give tylenol for fever reduction.

However, i dont snarl my nose at the other camp. People have a different comfort level. And thats ok. None of us need to accuse each other of not caring about our kids though. I can guarantee you that i love my kids as much as anyone on this planet. And Im sure you (general you) feel the same. You just need to figure out which camp you are in and be comfortable with that position...b/c it is definitely the minority position.
 
#50 ·
Quote:
bacterial infections don't NEED to be treated. It depends on the child and how his immune system is reacting (a good fever will kill almost any bacteria...anything that will survive in a 103/104 environment is pretty scarey stuff).
What?? bacterial infections DO need to be treated a good deal of the time. Sepsis, anyone?
 
#51 ·
Quote:

Originally Posted by alegna View Post
The problem/ danger is NOT the fever itself.
-Angela

Quote:

Originally Posted by babygrace View Post
what is the basis of the above statement?

Quote:

Originally Posted by alegna View Post
Biology? Fact? Not sure what your question is.

-Angela
we understand the symptomatic nature of fever. what you are saying additionally- "fever is not dangerous or problematic". can you point to references or studies that support this "biology/fact"?
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top