[OnTheIce]

Brenda Brenda:

Can you imagine going to the hospital with your child, be sent away with "give it electrolytes", which you have, and do again, but doesn't help, then go back, baby fills 8 diapers in 4 hours, and you are sent home AGAIN, and then the next day, you get told "WTH were you thinking, not coming in earlier? We hope he makes it through the night, but no guarantees"

Really.

Another assumption. Did mom treat the baby as per the hospital? You claim she did.

Will be nice to follow up and get the results of what the hospital finds.

[Brenda]

OnTheIce OnTheIce:

Brenda Brenda:

Can you imagine going to the hospital with your child, be sent away with "give it electrolytes", which you have, and do again, but doesn't help, then go back, baby fills 8 diapers in 4 hours, and you are sent home AGAIN, and then the next day, you get told "WTH were you thinking, not coming in earlier? We hope he makes it through the night, but no guarantees"

Really.

Another assumption. Did mom treat the baby as per the hospital? You claim she did.

Will be nice to follow up and get the results of what the hospital finds.

I say it does not matter. I did not say she did.

And yes, this post was clearly an assumption. Hence the "can you imagine"

[Brenda]

You are willing to throw the mom under the bus and assume she did not do what the hospital said she should.
Maybe she did. Maybe she did not. It does NOT matter.

[OnTheIce]

Brenda Brenda:

OnTheIce OnTheIce:

Brenda Brenda:

Can you imagine going to the hospital with your child, be sent away with "give it electrolytes", which you have, and do again, but doesn't help, then go back, baby fills 8 diapers in 4 hours, and you are sent home AGAIN, and then the next day, you get told "WTH were you thinking, not coming in earlier? We hope he makes it through the night, but no guarantees"

Really.

Another assumption. Did mom treat the baby as per the hospital? You claim she did.

Will be nice to follow up and get the results of what the hospital finds.

I say it does not matter. I did not say she did.

And yes, this post was clearly an assumption. Hence the "can you imagine"

You're insinuating that she treated the child within your post, Brenda....hence why I said you were making yet another assumption.

[Brenda]

IT DOES NOT MATTER IF SHE DID OR NOT.

[OnTheIce]

Brenda Brenda:

IT DOES NOT MATTER IF SHE DID OR NOT.

Sure it does.

Here's why:

Day 1: Hospital tells you to treat your child. You opt not to treat your child or treat your child incorrectly.

Day 2: You head back to the hospital. Hospital assumes you're treating the child as they recommended and tell you to give it more time as dehydration isn't solved overnight. Things will improve.

That's why it matters.

That's why having all the facts of a story matters.

[Brenda]

OnTheIce OnTheIce:

Brenda Brenda:

IT DOES NOT MATTER IF SHE DID OR NOT.

Sure it does.

Here's why:

Day 1: Hospital tells you to treat your child. You opt not to treat your child or treat your child incorrectly.

Day 2: You head back to the hospital. Hospital assumes you're treating the child as they recommended and tell you to give it more time as dehydration isn't solved overnight. Things will improve.

That's why it matters.

That's why having all the facts of a story matters.

Ah, no. Not since a child can dehydrate in a matter of hours, and die just as quickly. Electrolytes are supposed to work quickly, not overnight. That might be too long, and too late.

Also, she went back 3 times. Not 2. 3.

[BartSimpson]

OTI & Brenda,
The hospital failed when they did not treat the child. Period. If it were a minor issue then treating the child and releasing the child back to the mother should not have been a big deal, now should it?

It would have done no harm to see the child yet the hospital refused and that did harm. Which is quite the opposite of the Hippocratic Oath:

"First, do no harm."

[Brenda]

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

OTI & Brenda,
The hospital failed when they did not treat the child. Period. If it were a minor issue then treating the child and releasing the child back to the mother should not have been a big deal, now should it?

EXACTLY.

$1:

It would have done no harm to see the child yet the hospital refused and that did harm. Which is quite the opposite of the Hippocratic Oath:

"First, do no harm."

Hear hear.