[madilonts]

Well, this event happens enough that it might be worth studying the benefit of oxygen therapy, but I'd be very careful about the conclusions you draw from this.

Maybe the oxygen had a substantial positive effect, or maybe the child would've recovered on her own. We really don't know, since there are other reports of children who have good neurological outcome despite terrible prognosis [1] [2].

I'm suspicious because of the unusual and/or stereotyped responses in the Medical Gas article and the linked YouTube videos: "doctors said she had 48 hours to live" (doctors don't say things like that) and "this demonstrates that we're inducing 8101 genes!" (ummm, OK...), etc.

Also, be suspicious when something like this hits all the pseudo-news sites simultaneously. It reminds me of the articles that go something like "16 year-old cures cancer...DOCTORS HATE HIM!".

Finally, I'm very happy this little girl has been given a second chance and hope for her continued recovery. However, don't forget that a toddler was left unsupervised and submerged in a pool for 15 minutes. Some people call that an accident; some people call it neglect.

[1] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed?term=3379747

[2] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed?term=10665559

[astalwick]

> However, don't forget that when a baby is left unsupervised and is submerged in a pool for 15 minutes, it's called neglect.

Whoa there, slow down.

Kids are quick. One moment, your three kids are happily watching Finding Dory on the tv, while you're making dinner. The next, only two are: the third has quietly wandered off.

Unless you know the particulars, be very careful about tossing around words like 'neglect'.

[pharrington]

Like, one consistent behavior of properly functioning toddlers is that when they see something they don't know about, they try to put it in their mouth. Most of the world is unknown. You know, with 100% certainty, that as soon as possible, they will move in some random direction and put the random object in their mouth. So one component of competent parent is ensuring the toddler doesn't move to some dangerous location and try to put the dangerous thing in their mouth.

Analogously, maintaining a nuclear power plant is a very involved procedure, and if key individuals neglect to pay attention to certain monitors for what what in other contexts is a short period of time, failure occurs.

Yes, it requires constant attention. Not giving the task the attention it needs is to fail to care for it properly.

[madilonts]

Yeah, I realized that would be a controversial statement, and modified it to be a little less so.

However, I have a 2 and a 3 year-old. And I would consider it my fault if they wandered into a freezing pool.

[dpark]

"Your fault" and "neglect" are very different things. Accidents happen and accusing someone of neglect every time there's an accident is ridiculous.

[sleepychu]

So first, the child managed to get through a baby gate, sounds like this wasn't completely unconsidered by the parents.

> And I would consider it my fault if they wandered into a freezing pool.

What about a warm pool? Are you telling me that you consider all environmental factors at all times and act accordingly to reduce the risk as far as possible? If so, you're pulling off a superhuman feat, IMHO.

[Jare]

Of course, most of us would do that to ourselves. But calling it "neglect" to someone else is a different thing.

[kaybe]

The toddler fence proved to be non-toddler-proof. It can happen. It's not like the parents didn't try.

[quotha]

No, it doesn't remind me of those X HATE HIM click bait links