Funny story about giving children something to "help" them sleep.

An in-law of mine decided one night that enough was enough, both the child and the parents were going to get a complete, uninterrupted nights sleep. The child in question was given an appropriate amount of the syrupy liquid, and they sat down to wait.

After 90 mins, when it didn't work the way they wanted it too, they called another in-law who (erroneously) advised that they could safely give the child another full dose of the liquid. Another dose was administered to the tot.

I get a telephone call, with a screaming tot in the background, asking me to come at once. I arrive to find one incredibly hyperactive child, screaming and tearing about like the wild man of Borneo, and two very nervous, very embarrassed parents.

After they reluctantly related the story, I asked if they had ever heard of a paradoxical reaction. Children are remarkably prone to having paradoxical reactions to medications - they have reactions in which the outcome is the polar opposite of the expected outcome.

I took the bouncing tot off to the hospital, spoke with the paediatrician, who could only shake their head. Apparently, this is a too-common occurence. It is pointless to sedate the child (and who wants to give children drugs they don't need anyway is my opinion) as the two medications compete with each other, have different half-lives, and all come with their own risks. Since the tot was experiencing no other adverse effects (I learned that heart abnormalities can occur), it was decided to send them home and let the parents wait it out (after I personally assured the paediatrician that they had no other medications in the house they were likely to administer, and that I would stick around for a while) with their child. I agreed - they created the monster, why should the nursing staff have to deal with this child who essentially wasn't ill?

36 hours later, this exhausted child finally fell asleep.

The ironic part of this story is printed on the label of the bottle, was the warning that if they child did not become drowsy, do not give additional liquid as it increased the likelihood of just this happening.

I can see the problem developing if this kind of behaviour is habitual. The child builds up a tolerance, and the parents have to administer more and more in order to get the tacker to sleep. Once the top end of the therapeutic threshold is reached, it can be very easy to inadvertently poison a child. Please note though, I am in no way whatsoever suggesting that this is what happened in the McCann case.

(Edited to correct spelling/grammatical error)

Well, Bruyere, last night I saw an article indicating that a French newspaper has weighed in on all this, claiming that Kate McCann did overdose her daughter with a sedative, though how the French reporter would know I can't imagine. I can't wait for the response of the British media to that. This really is becoming a European national slanging match.

Though sooner or later, someone will probably claim that whatever happened to this child, it's all the fault of the U.S.

Ianfranco, is there a link where we can see the French media weighing in on this issue please?

I'm curious to see the article, and how close it comes to libel.

It really doesn't add up. Surely if this is what really happened then it would be so easy to just claim that the child self-dosed, a tragic accident. Why go through the charade of claiming the child was snatched?

That had occurred to me as well Sue.

ecnalubma, the journalist is Guilhem Battut and the newspaper is France Soir. My french is lousy, but I think this is a link http://www.francesoir.fr/faits-divers/2007/09/13/maddie-serait-morte-d-une-overdose.html

From what I gather, this information comes from tests done on bodily fluids found in the hire car. This would suggest that either Madeline's body was hidden for over three weeks and then transported in the car. Alternatively, the fluid could have come from clothing or other items transported in the car, suggesting that two doctors didn't have the wit to shove said clothing, blankets etc through a washing machine in the intervening three weeks.

Where I live, it would be considered child neglect to leave such young children unattended and without an appropriate babysitter present. If something happens to such unattended children, it becomes a criminal matter of neglect or endangerment.

Is it ever defensible to leave such young children alone, anywhere, without any responsible supervision?

Even if the parents did not directly harm or kill this child themselves, wouldn't you still hold them responsible for whatever did happen to her?

I've been following far more of the details recently, and it does seem despite having a resident babysitter they didn't trust her and their only defence for leaving the children alone was they say they kept the door locked.

However, if they did that it must have taken a lot of effort and presumably some noise to open a locked door without a key, and still no one has heard a thing and we've heard nothing about the state of the door, which is the first thing an insurance company will look at in a burglary to prove there was no contributory negligence.

Certainly the more I read the more odd it seems, and each new piece of evidence seems to make the parents look more and more suspicious. I and many others I know also wonder out of all the many people who go missing from this country worldwide how this became headline news every day and the family even met the Pope. Who decided to make it such a huge media issue, did the parents subtlely encourage the publicity I wonder? I certainly won't judge anyone before a trial is over but this has felt dubious for some reason to me for a long time.

Quote:

---

if they did that it must have taken a lot of effort and presumably some noise to open a locked door without a key

---

Not difficult at all, really, and it wouldn't make that much noise, either, if they forced it. (How many people would actually check it out if they heard one short bang? Most would assume someone just dropped something or knocked something over.) There are quite a few ways/tools to open locks, most of which are illegal unless you're a locksmith--but 'illegal' doesn't stop criminals from having such things.It just depends on what types of lock are used. (Nothing nefarious in my knowing this, it's just that my spouse is an apartment maintenance person and deals with a lot of locks, replacing, rekeying and so forth. )

It seems to me these parents are falling under that weird umbrella of suspicion that happens when the public feels they really need to know the facts and simply can't get them. Speculation runs rampant, fed by the press, and it's simply impossible to tell which things are 'facts', which are rumors or guesses, or simply fabrication on the part of journalists who want to sell papers.
Sometimes all the rumors turn out to be true, sometimes not, but I prefer to wait to pass judgment. I'm not a detective, I don't know the people involved, haven't walked in their shoes. I certainly wouldn't leave children that young alone for any length of time--not even the 5 minutes it takes me to walk to my mailbox and back. But I'm not in their situation, I'm not going to judge.

As far as seeking out publicity, he**, yes, if my child is missing, I will do anything I can to get people aware and keep the memory of it in peoples' heads, including banging on the door of the press room if need be. If no-one knows, no-one can help. Police depend on tips and leads to help them investigate. They'll run through a million false tips on the chance that one will be the lucky one. I'd do anything to help that process, if it meant getting my child found.

Actually, satguru, they are saying that they DIDN'T lock the door, judging that the major risk would be fire.

Moreover, the McCanns were dining with several friends that night, some of whom also had children, and they all, apparently, took it in turns to check on their kids. A total of 9 adults, the two McCanns and 7 friends, were in the Tapas restaurant, across from the McCanns' apartment (reached from the restaurant by walking around the resort's swimming pool). Their claim is that they checked on the children every 30 minutes, though one of the friends admits that he did not enter the bedroom of the McCann children when he also went to check on his daughter; he just listened at the door.

Certainly the more I read the more odd it seems, and each new piece of evidence seems to make the parents look more and more suspicious. I and many others I know also wonder out of all the many people who go missing from this country worldwide how this became headline news every day and the family even met the Pope. Who decided to make it such a huge media issue, did the parents subtlely encourage the publicity I wonder? I certainly won't judge anyone before a trial is over but this has felt dubious for some reason to me for a long time.

satguru,
Any article out there from the beginning has spoken of the parent's demand for media attention. There is now also a fund, being governed by Mr. McCann's brother, for donations to aid in the process. I agree with Taesma. If it were my child, I would do ANYTHING necessary to find them.

Did a bit of sleuthing around on the French language sites for the use of sedatives in general as I'm afraid it's more widespread than you'd think.
I am a bit worried about the echoes of what I'm reading now. Someone said that all those children were asleep already at seven p.m. when it was still light outside and that didn't sound plausible. I could not find the reference again as I looked at about twenty five sites, sorry.

The person I read was saying that it was suspect to think they'd all be that willing to sleep and also, I read a few reports that the twins didn't wake up when the examiners went into the room.

I'll keep looking at the sites and get a reference though.
So the premise I'm hearing now is that the parents doped their kids to have a peaceful night with friends, and the child overdosed accidentally?

anyway, the practice of sedatives is much more widespread than I thought.

Quote:

---

and the child overdosed accidentally

---

Then, as Sue said, why not claim that she took the medicine herself? Where was the body of the child kept all that time when people were searching?
Nothing really adds up, and I still wish the press would stop hassling and looking for ghoulish details.

I wondered about why the police wanted to read the mother's diaries until I read this:

Quote:

---

Kate McCann's diary 'tells of struggle to control Madeleine

Kate McCann's diary reveals she struggled to cope with three 'hyperactive' children, it was claimed yesterday.
The notebook, photocopied by Portuguese police, is said to show she found her role as a mother hard.
Portuguese newspapers, which have published what they claim are extracts, say it is 'fundamental' to the belief that she was involved in the death of her daughter Madeleine.

The 39-year-old GP is reported to have written about how difficult it was to control Madeleine and her two-year- old brother and sister, and how her husband Gerry often left her to get on with family duties on her own.

Mrs McCann reportedly described Madeleine and the twins as hyperactive and 'hysterical', and discloses that looking after them sapped her strength and emotions.

---

A mother dealing with two normally active 2 year old twins, as well as a normally active 3 year old, might well view her children as being "hyperactive" simply because she felt so drained by their behavior or their demands. When that mother is also a physician, she might resort to self medicating her children with some sedative drugs, simply to obtain some peace or relief for herself. For all we know, she might have medicated them regularly to get them to sleep at night.

If this were the case, she could be seen as behaving unethically as a physician (particularly if prescription drugs were used and these were not prescribed by the children's' own treating pediatrician for specific purposes, but were instead prescribed by the parents themselves). She could also be viewed as being abusive toward her children because she was giving them medication they did not medically need or require in order to satisfy her own needs to quiet them down or put them to sleep.

Let's assume, for the sake of argument, that the children were sedated the night that Maddie "disappeared". Presumably this would have been done so the parents could go out to dinner. We already know they were then left alone in the vacation apartment.

Sleeping children, even sedated ones, can awaken. Unattended children can fall and injure themselves, choke on things they put in their mouths, ingest things that are harmful, and even accidentally hang or electrocute themselves, besides simply opening a door and wandering off. These are all good reasons why 2 and 3 year olds must never be left unattended anywhere.

So, if something did happen to Maddie in that vacation apartment, her parents would have been fully to blame for it, since they left her unattended. The parents would then face the possible removal of their other children by social services, as well as criminal charges for child neglect and endangerment, and possibly negligent homicide. If she had also been sedated at the time, by medication prescribed by her parents, both her parents would also face the possible loss of their medical licenses.

The parents would then have strong motives to cover up an accidental death of this child--due to any cause--since they would be held legally responsible for leaving her unattended, and hence responsible for her death. If she died of an accidental drug overdose, either administered by one of her parents, or taken by the child herself, the criminal charges would be compounded, and the parents' medical licenses would also be in jeopardy. And, on top of that, they might lose custody of their two other children. For all of these reasons, the parents might have motive to claim the child was abducted and to dispose of her body.

I agree that the details of this case do not fit together. How a body could be concealed for so long, and later disposed of without arousing suspicion, or anyone noticing, doesn't quite make sense. But, if something did happen to Maddie in that apartment to cause her death, a case could be made for the fact that the parents had strong motive to try to cover it up or conceal it.

That does not mean that they may have intentionally harmed their child at all. It simply means they might have motive to conceal her death.

Thanks, CB , for that clear and credible explanation for a possible cover-up. I had not thought of it like that.

Surely the next logical step would have been to flee the site of the crime as quickly as possible and hope the furore died down quickly?

The Bring Madeleine Home page is here for anyone interested.

No comment from I on the theories written up and/or reported by newspapers or the "feelings" posted by people in general on the net. I just hope that Madeleine is found safe and well.

Well said ChelseaBelle.

I was also under the impression that here in the UK, physicians are not allowed to treat members of his/her own family? Is that right or have I plucked this from nowhere?

I just want to stress once more, please say nothing which could be actionable. It isn't you personally who would be in trouble, it would be the site.

I agree with Satguru that what is being leaked out (from where?) is only the tip of the iceberg, if that.

There was an interesting article in the Mail on Sunday today, I really don't know how true it is.

http://www.mailonsunday.co.uk/pages/live...in_page_id=1811

I felt the article was undermined by the unnecessary comments on the policeman's appearance, but it was food for thought all the same.

Having had some experience of media reporting (nationals, locals, periodicals and tv) in a case involving my son (negligence by school, resulting in life threatening injuries) then I can only say you must take everything reported with a very very big pinch of salt.

The reason I mentioned the practice of sedating children is that I had seen it while living in Europe and doctors had mentioned it very casually, much too casually for a battle weary mother to not notice and be tempted. When I tried to look it up without this case clouding it, it proved to be impossible. I wanted to know if people admitted doing it and why. This is when I happened onto a site or two that made me think that it might actually be an error in judgement, a gross error, and medical judgement as well as parental.

What CB has written is plausible from one standpoint and particularly if the whole bunch of children were sedated. That is what one commentator suggested. So if the parents attending had all allowed sedation to get the kids to sleep and give them some peace and quiet, they would have an interest in keeping an accidental overdose quiet as well. I don't know about you but my children never went to bed that early ever and especially not in the summer and not on holiday. So if the kids were asleep in their separate hotel rooms at seven pm, it's just not logical to go to dinner thinking you'll pop in frequently if there isn't something else going on.

I thought that over, and the relative ease with which people I had met viewed the sedation issue, and it's one of the only possible things that seems plausible.

I think I looked at this from the other standpoint at first, that the practice of leaving kids in the room and checking on them frequently is much more common than you would imagine. But now, if there is a gross error of judgement it would be to have sedated children to have a peaceful evening without them, instead of just hiring a babysitter.
I did not assume anything but that this was a terrible accident with a bad judgement call on the part of the parents. Now, if it is revealed that there was heavy sedation involved and a coverup, it would be much more than I'd imagined.

If it was indeed gross misconduct on the part of parents/physicians, then the police will have to provide evidence. They would have to have tested the other children, questioned the other parents present. I don't see that as plausible as, surely someone would have talked by now. I rather doubt that the whole group of parents would remain silent on this.

Anyway, justice is just going to have to take its course.

My only wish is like CB to see if I could accept a different possibility instead of assuming that it was indeed an error of judgement on the part of the parents to leave the children unnattended. I was willing to believe this, until, the sedative issue came up and I thought, that's the only thing that could persuade me that the parents had acted wrongly and covered up a horrible error.
As to covering up the incident like that though, it's beyond belief and we'll have to wait for the results of the tests.

Despite having one thread closed and at least two warnings by administrators, this thread is STILL the "Funtrivia courtroom" ,,,, or more appropriately, the idle chitchat of gossipmongers.

Could we all stop speculating here and let the OFFICIAL investigators do the digging?

It's these kind of threads that perpetuate the media circus, and influence ordinary people away from the facts!

The reported disappearance of this child does constitute a mystery, and the media tidbits of information do fuel speculation. This case is receiving a lot of coverage--warranted or not. People are free to engage in idle chitchat and offer opinions or hypotheses about what might have occurred, and why. Where is the harm in that?

I did not see the previous threads which were closed or removed. I therefore do not quite understand the warnings regarding libel. Libel is the deliberate attempt to defame someone's reputation by knowingly writing false factual information about them. Opinions and speculation are not facts and they do not constitute libel. Libel must also directly damage someone. Nothing said here seems to even remotely approach that criteria. No one is deliberately posting false factual information in a concerted effort to knowingly damage anyone's reputation. People are simply attempting to piece together parts of a puzzle by using information already reported in the media. I see this as quite harmless and not likely to influence this case in the slightest.

I agree with delboy. I find it hard to believe how people can make up their minds about what happened based on what they read in the newspaper or see on television. I take everything the media says with a grain of salt.

I also think it's not our place to judge the parents. Let he who is without sin cast the first stone. I am sure each of us can think of a time when we took a risk - perhaps left the children in the car while we dashed into the corner shop, left them alone while we popped across the road to a neighbour, left them playing unsupervised in the yard, etc. It only takes a few seconds for something to happen. Most of us have just been lucky nothing has happened to our kids.

Our Australian media has been full of stories about the McCann parents possibly overdosing the child and blood being found in their hired car. This doesn't make sense. If the parents were physicians, wouldn't that make them LESS likely to administer an overdose than a "normal" parent who is not as familiar with drugs? And secondly, if the child was oversedated, why would there be any bleeding?

I don't really want an answer to those two questions. I merely pose them to point out the inconsistency of the media reports.