Amber necklace for teething baby

Gingham_R

Redouble wrote: »

Ah now we're insane :cool:

You're not insane. You're trying to do your best for your children like any other caring mother.

I have to admit though, I think it's a dangerous thing to do. Your baby could snap the catch if he/she pulled at the necklace while you are out of the room and put it in his mouth.

We're told the catch is made to come open like that to reduce the risk of strangulation, though of course even then there is the risk that it might not come apart if caught on something.

Why is that a risk worth taking? Even if there was scientific proof that it wasn't woo-woo after all, why is that a risk worth taking?

Redouble

I completely understand that, and that's why I know they are not for everyone. I tested the necklace myself. It doesn't snap that easily and it sits under his clothes (for what it's worth, my baby is now 26 months and tells me off if I forget his necklace, he does not play with it at all, however he does play with his brothers marbles and marble tree and I am happy he is safe with those) also my son was in a sling pretty much constantly from birth until crawling then walking, and he slept in bed with me, so for me personally, there was no risk of him pulling it off then ingesting it, because I was always there.
The necklace also sat below the hemline of his top, more chance of that getting caught and being pulled tight across his throat than the necklace.

Again, please be aware I am NOT saying, there's definitely no danger, everyone should use them, paracetamol is evil etc etc.
I am saying *I* was happy using them. *I* assessed the danger and there was no extra danger present for our situation.

ETA - I am happy to recommend them, mainly because I would expect any parent to risk assess for themselves, either before buying or after, not just go off the word of a few strangers from the 'net. My opinions and advice are just that. They are not rules that work for all, you take what you think will help and leave the dross xx

onlyroz

Redouble wrote: »

Whatever happened to treating others as you would like to be treated?

If I was doing something that endangered my baby's life because I believed some extremely flimsy "evidence" with no scientific basis, then I hope that others would be brave enough to tell me that I was being stupid.

Lotus-eater

Teenie_D wrote: »

Eh???? This doesn't make sense LOL!!! Yes I am happy to give my child a NATURAL remedy as long as it works, and as far as i'm concerned it does work. As I have said I will give him calpol on the rare occasion that he needs it but I am not happy giving him a pain killer day in day out!

So you're happy to give your child this natural acid 24 hours a day (if you keep the necklace on that long), as untested and unknown how it works?

You get naturally high in radiation rocks, doesn't mean you'd wear it round your neck.
This natural claim has really got to be stopped, just because it's natural, does A, not make it work, B, not make it safe.

I find this an interesting debate. There is no scientific reason why amber should work, unless it's a placebo.

Looking at sites selling these necklaces, two said that these necklaces weren't suitable for under 36 months due to a choking hazard and one said it was homoeopathy.

Most of the sites either didn't say how it worked, or said it was unknown how it worked. The ones that did say, say things that are scientifically impossible.

Given we know scientifically that homoeopathy works no better than a placebo, which has been proven in many researches and given there is no known scientific way this amber could work, unless it was on an unknown mental plane. I'm of the opinion that it's more dangerous to put something around a child's neck than get the unknown powers of amber.

I don't take the mickey out of anyone using it, nor do I insult their intelligence, we all do what we think is right, this is just my opinion.

c_l_a_i_r_e

OP I've been researching these and have just ordered mine from dinodaisy based on reviews online and feedback from some friends in real life. I've also had Amber Pumpkin recommended to me too.

Redouble, try not to take some of the posts on here to heart. You've been a mummy longer than I have so I'm sure you've realised by now that no-one can be as judgemental as our fellow parents;)

pinkclouds

Gingham_R wrote: »

I think it's a dangerous thing to do. Your baby could snap the catch if he/she pulled at the necklace while you are out of the room and put it in his mouth.

There are always risks, with everything, but they can be countered.

Redouble wrote: »

my son was in a sling pretty much constantly from birth until crawling then walking, and he slept in bed with me, so for me personally, there was no risk of him pulling it off then ingesting it, because I was always there.

^This is what my friend does, 24/7, when they are babies. (Well, I do too but I don't use these necklaces.) I am confident she would spot anything amiss immediately. Any time you feel you won't be alert/supervising baby, you can take the necklace off. Past the mobile phase, if there are older siblings then I'm afraid there are equal hazards posed by their toys e.g. tiny lego pieces, little beads, even "toy" necklaces that invariably are strung on flimsy elastic, etc.

MandM90 wrote: »

http://www.nhs.uk/news/2009/10October/Pages/Copper-bracelets-and-arthritis.aspx

^That article mentions the well-known and long-established placebo effect - which is both valid and beneficial. If that is all the amber does then it is still worthwhile for those in whom it creates the effect.

Back to the OP again... I am not aware of any adverse effects on my friend's kids. She has been using amber with all of them for a few years. The fact that I'm not convinced it's made any difference to the teething is beside the point.

Oh, and one final point, I actually have amber jewellery. It has yet to cause any side effect from ornamental usage, so I doubt that amber necklaces for teething will have any harmful effects from mere contact.

Gingham_R

pinkclouds wrote: »

if there are older siblings then I'm afraid there are equal hazards posed by their toys e.g. tiny lego pieces, little beads, even "toy" necklaces that invariably are strung on flimsy elastic, etc.

You don't put a baby in a cot with their sibling's beads/lego though.

barbiedoll

I wouldn't dream of judging anyone on here as a parent, it's clear from OP's and others posts that they care for their children's welfare and are distressed at seeing them in pain.

The thing is with most "alternative" remedies is that the effects aren't quantifiable. It's hard to tell if a baby has stopped crying because it's wearing a necklace or if it would have stopped anyway. The placebo effect is known to be extremely powerful, even patients who know that they have been given a placebo, still say that it works!

The parent market is an extremely lucrative one and I doubt that there's any parent anywhere who hasn't bought an item that proved to be pointless/useless/not worth the money etc etc. Negotiating your way through the early years is difficult enough and we're led to believe that there is no problem that can't be solved by buying some expensive piece of useless tat. Babies have suffered with teething problems since humans evolved with teeth and past remedies included rubbing whiskey on their gums, something which we wouldn't dream of doing now. If anyone wants to spend their money on a necklace and they think it's doing some good then why not? I guess it keeps someone in a job, that's got to be a good thing.

Wickedkitten

MandM90 wrote: »

And even if something could seep out, a quick google of salicyclic acid (supposedly the 'active ingredient') returns some worrying safety implications. Just because something is natural, doesn't make it safe. Would you feed your children a strange looking plant you found growing by the side of the road, just because it doesn't come in a package? Natural =/= safe. And I wouldn't put something around a babies neck.

Then again, as parents we all make our own decisions and risk assessments. If someone feels that an anklet helps their child with pain, fair enough. Frozen fruit and teething rings were fine for mine. Whilst teething is hard on us mums, the guilt of an accident due to a tangled necklace would be horrific so if I were to ever invest in something like this (doubtful!) I'd only ever get the anklet.

Chances are it is fine but if you don't know how it works or what seeps out of it how on Earth can you judge people who've used painkillers (the effects of which have been extensively researched). Just a thought.

Salicylic acid is about as natural as aspirin. As a matter of fact, when salicylic acid was used as a pain reliever, they had to find a way of making it less harsh because it was really harsh on the stomach and that's actually how aspirin came about.

Redouble

onlyroz wrote: »

If I was doing something that endangered my baby's life because I believed some extremely flimsy "evidence" with no scientific basis, then I hope that others would be brave enough to tell me that I was being stupid.

I. Am. Not. Stupid.

But thank you so much for your opinion