Well I guess if I was smart before I leave the store I’d find some sort of travel bottle that would work. But you never think about these things until its 2am and the kid is crying because she is teething 
I have in the past poured some into a small cup, use syringe, and pour the rest back - but that ends up wasting some of it.
I’m really tired of people trying to child proof the world.
How about keeping the stuff out of the reach of Kids? Restrictions and child proof stuff can be a burden for Adults with disabilities; even something as common as arthritis or neuropathy ‘child proof’ stuff can be a pain to deal with sometimes to the point people say ‘screw it’ and forgo their medications.
You can be treated without being admitted to a hospital.
I thought they were referring to this study because it evaluated roughly 450,000 patient records from 2001-2008, but on first glance it does not appear that the article mentions specific symptoms such as faster heart rate or liver damage. When talking about injuries (~25,000), it says “Injured means the medical outcome was coded as moderate effect, major effect, or death”. I looked at the 2009 Annual Report of American Association of Poison Control Centers and searched for “moderate” (the report is 200 pages long, so I have no intention of reading it closely). It said:
The NPDS database allows for the coding of up to 131 different clinical effects (signs, symptoms, or laboratory abnormalities) for each case. Each clinical effect can be further defined as related, not related, or unknown if related. Clinical effects were coded in 849,516 (34.3%) cases. […] The duration of effect is required for all cases that report at least one clinical effect and have a medical outcome of minor, moderate or major effect (n = 455,084).
It appears that in general, most cases do not have a clinical effect coded. I would assume that all admitted patients would have clinical effects coded, but I am not sure. It seems that the “25000” is specifically not including “minor effects”.
When your child ingests some amount of medication, is your plan to just sit at home and see what happens?
How many children need to die or be injured each year before you consider something worth discussing?
I know what it means, I was being a smart ass.
But here in the US, it’s become popular to use that as a half-assed call to arms for the Ayn Rand slobbering dorks.
What does this have to do whatsoever with flow restrictors on children’s medicine?
I’m going to file a patent for a shelf installation kit that elevates it six feet off the floor. I’ll make billions marketing it to parents as child proof medicine storage. Also angle brackets with which to bolt all chairs to the floor to prevent kids from dragging a chair from the dining room and climbing up to my patented shelf system.
(this is a problem parents should be solving, not regulatory bodies)
Stuff your Randian horses shit.
Not everyone who is wary of an over imposing government is a “slobbering dork”. Thanks for stereotyping though.
What about when parents take the medicine down and get distracted without having a chance to put it away?
What about when parents are traveling and have to take their medicines with them?
What about when children visit another person’s house where medicines has not been put out of reach?
Children should not be self administering medication.
That is what it has to do with restrictions on children’s medicine.
To say otherwise is to admit that the major problem isn’t the bottle or the package…but the home. Where the kids have easy access to medications and self administer dosages or the parents are so dirt dumb they do not know how to pour a table spoon.
What about when parents leave a stove available for children to turn on, or when parents leave uncovered electrical sockets, or when parents leave a bottle of wine in the 'fridge—without a flow restrictor…OMG.
Now you are resorting to hyperbole. A 120V electrical socket is designed to be tough to touch the hot lead. But in places where it is a higher and far more lethal voltage, like Europe, the electrical sockets are recessed. Additionally, in places where there is a higher probability of injury, like in a bathroom near water, GFCI circuits are required. And a child drinking a bottle of wine is improbable, but it is still far less hazardous than overdosing on acetaminophen. But again, none of this has anything to do with whether or not it is wise to put a flow restrictor on a bottle of children’s medicine.
If if if if.
This is why my kid’s sand box is full of silica free sand. Because, you know, silica can cause lung cancer.
Well, no - not silica free, since SiO is still the bulk of the volume. It should probably be dust free, though. If it’s “natural” sand it’ll have a reasonable grain size as is, but if it’s from a rock crusher there will be a fair bit of silica dust unless they’ve done extra work to remove it.
Historically, this wasn’t important, since most sand was dredged and mined. It’s a fairly modern change that most commercially available sand is from crushing rocks.
What’s with the weird use of “fiat”?
And could you give some examples?
IIRC, its feldspar instead of quartz. If you worked around silica dust a lot, for sure I would be concerned. Playing in the sand box a few times a month isn’t going to hurt you. But what do I know?
Feldspars are still silicates, but not straight SiO - so ok, that could matter.
And I guess the worry is that some kids might well play in their sand box almost every day for several years, and when you add in how close to the sand they are … maybe? I haven’t exactly studied it either, but it doesn’t seem like an entirely empty worry.
Flow restrictors would be helpful, but wouldn’t it be even more helpful to stop putting acetaminophen into every medicine? They claim it’s in cold medicine to help your fever, but its main purpose is to stop people from abusing cold medicine with the threat of killing your liver. They basically add a small dose of poison to stop people from using medicine recreationally. I’d much rather see people get high on DXM or codeine than die of liver failure because they took too much acetaminophen.
But haven’t the past 50 years of failed drug policy shown that addicts are TOTALLY motivated by reasonable negative consequences, and have NO problem at all managing their addictions when they become dangerous or even inconvenient?
/sarcasm
Safety mechanisms on medicine bottles hardly qualifies as “over imposing” govt.
Recording every text between Hannah and Chelsea about their sorority party shenanigans - yes. Trying to keep a kid from OD’ing on meds - no.
This idea might be a prudent one - and it might not. As others pointed out, this doesn’t prevent consumption, but makes it slower to consume. If a child is able to defeat a child safety cap, is the reduced flow really going to prevent more ODs? How many ODs are from actual children self medicating, and how many are from parents accidentally giving too much medicine? If the number of ODs have recently increased, what is the reason for that? We have had the same child lock system for years. Would education as to the dangers of children’s medicine have more of an impact? One thing I’ve learned in my limited run on this earth is the solutions to problems are not always what “common sense” would dictate. Not every act made for the interest of the public’s safety is a rational, prudent one.
