Showing posts with label parenting. Show all posts
Showing posts with label parenting. Show all posts

Thursday, May 16, 2013

When Should I Pierce My Baby's Ears?



Parents of newborns often ask me what is the best time to pierce a baby’s ears.  My standard answer leaves many perplexed.  Before I reveal what that reply is, let’s briefly analyze the relevant issues surrounding ear piercing.
            Earrings have been used since biblical times and it seems that the practice of piercing infants’ ears dates back to that era. The most common reasons for ear piercing reported by parents are the following:
1.      It is traditional in our culture.
2.      It hurts less to have it done when they’re babies, or at least, they won’t remember the pain.
3.      They look cute.
4.      How else will people know that it’s a girl?
The arguments against early piercing revolve around the potential risks of complications and issues of safety.  There is the concern that babies have a higher risk for localized skin infections as well as for life-threatening generalized sepsis. The possibility of acquiring tetanus is quoted by those physicians who advocate waiting until six months of age (to complete three doses of tetanus vaccine) though it is hard to find any solid data on the actual incidence of this disease following ear piercing. Children are more likely to develop sensitivity to metals if exposed at an earlier age.  And when the child grows into a toddler, the risks of suffocation and injuries to the ear lobe increase as the child becomes more active.  Also, the studs of earrings have a propensity to become stuck or embedded under the skin on the back of the ear lobes of infants.
The weighing of risks and benefits in medicine incorporates two ethical prerogatives:  the principle of beneficence (the desire to provide aid and relief) and the principle of non-maleficence (the desire not to harm).  But, the issue of ear piercing should include yet another aspect of ethical consideration: the principle of autonomy – that an individual has the right to choose or refuse a treatment.  The individual, in this case, is the baby, and though we can’t ask her, there is no urgency that we can’t wait until she is able to express her opinion.
Some may scoff at this notion, pointing out that parents routinely make medical decisions for their children, but they do so in situations where there is a clear health benefit to their child, where it’s not feasible to wait a few years until the child is able to understand the choice and verbalize it.  No such benefit can be surmised with ear piercing. Still, most children wouldn’t make a big fuss about having had their ears pierced when they were infants, you may say.  But what about baby girls who have multiple ear piercings? How about boys that have had their ears pierced as infants?  Both of these are becoming more common trends.  Are they not entitled to make that choice for themselves?
So this is what I tell parents.  Jewelry is used in our society to connote social status (why else would someone drop thousands of dollars on a Rolex when they can use their cell phone to tell the time) and for cosmetic reasons.  Babies don’t care to flash Bling and they are adorable without jewelry (in fact, jewelry on babies is a tad gaudy – what’s next? Lipstick? High heels?).  If it is absolutely crucial to you that people know the gender of your child, use the old pink/blue color scheme, pick names that are not ambivalent as to sex, or just tell people, “She’s a girl!” or “He’s a boy!”
As far as the pain issue, it is clear that infants feel pain just as acutely as older children and adults do.  In fact, there is some evidence that early painful experiences might modulate the perception of pain later in life. If you think your child will not want to have her ears pierced when she’s older out of fear of pain, think again.  Teenagers hardly think twice about piercing their ears, noses, eye-brows, tongues, navels… and more sensitive parts.
What about the sense of culture and maintaining tradition? Traditions change.  When I was an infant no one used infant car seats and few buckled up their seat-belts, doctors smoked as they made hospital rounds and there was no talk of “health foods”.  Bucking tradition is one of the great joys of life, particularly when you are making a rational choice for your child.
So when is the best time to pierce your baby’s ears?  Answer: when she (or he) requests to have it done.  Now wasn’t that simple?

Friday, June 10, 2011

7 Medications Pediatricians Should Never Prescribe...But Still Do

Almost every visit to the pediatrician results in the prescription of one or more medications. As a parent, you'd like to trust that the medications your doctor prescribes for your child are selected based on careful reflection, and are not only effective, but safe. Unfortunately that's not always the case. As a board-certified pediatrician of sixteen years I regret to confess that many of the treatments we provide are ineffective, while others can cause grave harm. Too often, we doctors stray from accepted standards of care as a matter of expediency, the result of habit, or to satisfy perceived parental expectations. Nowhere is this so apparent as when a pediatrician prescribes a medication that experts agree should never be used by primary care doctors.

A medication that is shunned by pediatricians typically possesses one or more of the following features: it is not safe; it is not effective; its use has been supplanted by newer, better choices; pediatricians do not have the expertise required to prescribe the drug. Using these criteria, let us examine 7 medications that your pediatrician should never prescribe under any circumstance.

Promethazine:

Pediatricians commonly use this medication for the treatment of nausea and vomiting that often accompany viral intestinal infections. Unfortunately, it doesn't work very well and it frequently produces drowsiness, dizziness and confusion: symptoms we'd like to avoid in a child whose mental status must be monitored as an indicator of dehydration. The intra-venous use of this medication has resulted in tragic events requiring the amputation of limbs due to the caustic nature of the drug, and is now prohibited in many hospitals. Fortunately, we have a much more effective medication at our disposal with a far better safety profile; which makes one wonder why some doctors still cling to Promethazine.

Cough suppressants:

The common cold is the most common ailment in childhood. It is natural to want to provide some relief to a child whose cough is keeping her from sleeping. Unfortunately, the cough medications we have at our disposal have not been shown to be effective in children and may cause unacceptable side-effects. Over the counter cough medicines almost universally include the active ingredient, Dextromethorphan (DM), whereas prescription versions may employ Codeine. Both these drugs are derivatives of opiates. Respiratory depression and behavioral problems have been observed in children taking these products, and in infants, overdoses have resulted in deaths.

In October 2007, the American Academy of Pediatrics proposed to the Food and Drug Administration that the following warning be included on the labeling of cough medications:
"This product has been shown to be ineffective in the treatment of cough and cold in children under six years of age. Serious adverse reactions, including but not limited to death have been reported with the use, misuse and abuse of this product." Inexplicably, many pediatricians continue to routinely prescribe these medications even to infants.

Dexamethasone eye drops:

This is an example of a medication that can be extremely efficacious, but which pediatricians should not prescribe because they lack the requisite expertise to use it safely. Dexamethasone is a steroid that is utilized for its anti-inflammatory properties. These eye drops are a powerful tool for a variety of conditions but require a careful eye exam by an ophthalmologist prior to their use. If applied in the midst of some eye infections, Dexamethasone-containing drops can exacerbate the infection and lead to irreparable eye injury. This medication is best left to the eye specialists.

Nystatin with Triamcinolone Combination Cream:

Sometimes the sum of the parts is less than the individual parts. Nystatin is a useful topical antifungal, routinely used to treat diaper rashes that have an overgrowth of yeast. Triamcinolone is a potent steroid cream that is effective in treating a variety of inflammatory conditions of the skin, including eczema. The problem arises when these two medications are combined. Doctors, wanting to add some anti-inflammatory effect in the treatment of a yeast rash, or uncertain as to whether the rash is the result of a fungal infection or due to plain inflammation, mistakenly instruct parents to use this product in the diaper area. The potency of all steroid creams is multiplied when applied to skin that is occluded by dressings, plastic wraps, or diapers. When applied under cover of a diaper, Triamcinolone can lead to ulcerations of the skin, which often intensify as a well-meaning parent continues to apply ever more cream in a frantic but futile attempt to alleviate the worsening rash. Only thin applications of far weaker steroid creams might be applied to this extremely delicate area of the body, and only after the careful consideration of potential risks and benefits.

Cefaclor:

A few decades ago, Cefaclor was one of the only oral preparations of a family of antibiotics known as the Cephalosporins, which are commonly used to treat a variety of childhood infections. This particular medication, however, has a much higher rate of allergic reactions compared to other drugs in its class, including a particularly severe complication known as Serum Sickness-Like Reaction, in which children develop rash, fever, swollen, painful joints, and other troubling symptoms. Furthermore, many bacteria have become resistant to this drug. In a large study published in 2003, out of 19 antibiotics tested, Cefaclor was the least likely to kill the most common bacterium implicated in ear infections, sinus infections and pneumonia. Academic medical centers have stopped using this medication some 20 years ago, but some doctors in the community just can't break the habit.

Albuterol Oral Syrup:

Albuterol by inhalation, either in an aerosol or inhaler form, remains the most important rescue medicine for the treatment of asthma attacks. When the medication is inhaled, it travels directly to receptors located on the walls of the respiratory airways, signaling muscle fibers to relax, thereby reducing bronchial constriction and improving the flow of air in and out of the lungs. The inhaled route maximizes the amount of medication delivered to its intended target and mitigates common side-effects, such as jitteriness and an accelerated heart rate, that are produced when the drug enters the bloodstream. When the oral formulation is used, the medication must first be absorbed from the intestinal tract into the circulation, by which it then travels throughout the body, with just a fraction of the ingested dose eventually finding its way onto the receptors of the airways. This is a highly ineffective delivery system that magnifies the side-effects while minimizing effectiveness. Albuterol oral syrup is often used not for asthma, but as a type of ersatz cough medicine; a practice that is a relic of the past.

Anti-Diarrhea Compounds:

Diarrhea is a common occurrence in childhood, most often the result of a viral gastroenteritis; what is commonly referred to as the "stomach flu". At times, it can be the result of bacterial dysentery. The key to the treatment of this usually self-limited but bothersome condition is to provide hydration and nutrition. Guidelines from the American Academy of Pediatrics and the Center for Disease Control and Prevention discourage the use of anti-diarrhea compounds due to their lack of efficacy and the potential for serious side-effects, including severe cramping, and temporary paralysis of the gut, which can lead to a concentration of bacteria and their toxins in the setting of dysentery. Unfortunately, many pediatricians are either unaware of, or choose to ignore these recommendations.

At its best, the practice of pediatrics incorporates scientific evidence, critical thinking, best practices, and accepted standards of care, while embracing humility and a deep compassion; ever cognizant of each child's unique constitution and the cultural values of his family. Too often, we doctors fall far short of this objective, particularly when we are rushed, when we don't take the time to listen patiently or examine carefully, or when we fall into the ruts of habit, not questioning what we think we know.

Sir William Osler, a renowned 19th century physician who practiced at a time where many of the treatments were ineffective and fraught with hazards, wrote, "One of the first duties of the physician is to educate the masses not to take medicine": an admonition that retains a clear ring of truth even in the 21st century. All medications have potential side-effects and, particularly in children, a wise philosophy is to use the fewest medications with the most favorable safety profile for the least amount of time.

Many childhood illnesses are self-resolving conditions that doctors should manage by providing comfort to the child and by counseling parents, rather than blithely dispensing prescriptions designed to subdue symptoms without a conscientious attempt at identifying the true nature of the underlying condition. We doctors must do better. The best parents can do is to become informed consumers of health-care, and never hesitate to question their doctor.

Dr. Palmieri is a board certified pediatrician and the author of Suffer the Children: Flaws, Foibles, Fallacies and the Grave Shortcomings of Pediatric Care. His interests include patient safety and how cognitive errors lead to errors in diagnosis and treatment.

http://www.amazon.com/Suffer-Children-Fallacies-Shortcomings-ebook/dp/B004R1QBCY/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1306890395&sr=8-2