Hacker News Reader

I dated a girl whose brother came down with a high fever when he was young, and he became mentally retarded

Off-topic here, but I'm curious for my own family.

From what I've read on fever phobia, it seems like what most people consider a high fever really is normal and no reason to panic like we're used to doing[1]. In this girl's brother's case, I wonder how high that fever really was (and how old he was) in order for it to have affected him like that.

[1] Or have nurses on the 24/7 pediatrician line yell at you to rush to the nearest ER, only to get charged $400+ for Tylenol.

I know a fever of ~40.5 or 105 when taken orally is a medical emergency, you shouldn't even waste time calling anyone before sticking your kid in a car hugging every icepack you've got, because the problem won't be brain damage it'll be death. A fever over 41/106 when taken anally is hyperthermia and can lead to the rapid breakdown of cells (likely the girl's brother got brain damage either through braincell death if he had a severe fever, or his fever was associated with swelling of the brain, which usually shows with uncommonly intense headaches/migraines).

From what I remember, if your kids fever ever gets over 39/100.4 (obviously if they're a baby or infant you should call your own doctor for any fever and follow their orders) you should call your family doctor, keep them cool (cold clothes and such, nothing severe) to keep them cool and do what the doctor says. Over 40/104 (and this is what my mum did to me, she's a nurse) she kept a cold bath and had me sit in it for 5 minutes or so, before laying down in bed with cold clothes and IIRC sometimes even ice packs to keep the fever dipping under the 40's. Over night my fever broke and stayed below 40 and my family doctor said I'd be fine. She even said, the only reason she kept me out of hospital was because doctors treat a fever with everything but cold until it's a last resort. I wasn't a particularly happy kid having been dunked in a cold bath all night, but I'd certainly have been more uncomfortable for a lot longer in hospital, but I had a nurse with over 20 years of experience (a considerable amount more experience than the junior doctors they leave on staff at 3am).

Personally I believe, a paediatrician shouldn't have got into the job if he didn't expect panicked phone calls all hours of the night. So anyone with a half-decent paediatrician and concerns, I'd say call away. The bastards get paid way too much and if they don't want to deal with their patients complaining they should have become a mortician.

I'll be the dad that will shell out $400 for Tylenol to avoid the risk of my child becoming retarded.

Not to mention, $400 for peace of mind is pretty cheap, and would probably buy me a decade or two of ulcer-free living.

That's why it's wrong to charge $400 for tylenol.

I hope health care/insurance reform works.

My backup hope is that my children love gruel.

I'm not talking about the money here, that's a whole different discussion. Of course everyone will shell out money for their child's safety.

My point is with your statement, "to avoid the risk of my child becoming retarded." Since when does a high fever cause brain damage or whatever? It seems to me that unless you're burning at over 106°F (or 104°F for children maybe) there shouldn't be much to worry about. Just try to alleviate the fever at home (unless it constantly persists that high over a day or something).

Don't worry, there are lots of ways things can screw up -- so what gets you will probably be something completely different.

What got me was a simple infection in a tooth. It didn't hurt, so I didn't realize that it was bad. Besides, I was incredibly tired from being "burnt out" which was destroying my life... Let me just say that I'll never see non-functional people in a workplace in the same way. Shudder.

(Yes, totally off-topic. :-)

It "got" you?

My professional life, definitively.

(It certainly has cut back on my life expectancy, too.)

But I shouldn't complain. Bacteria infections over a long time might attack the heart or the spine.

The good part is that I sat down and thought "It seems I can't take stress badly or that I start doing things before I'm really healthy. It should help if I do things I love, so I'll try to do that." The right decision, for the wrong reason.

"There's got to be a million synonyms for really stupid people doing really stupid things"

It's curious though that some similar words are acceptable. Nobody complains about "lame" or "dumb", even though there are people with those precise medical conditions. Nor does describing something as "brain dead" seem to arouse this reaction. And it's fine to call something "crazy" or "mad", or say that an organisation is "schizophrenic", etc etc.

I've heard this sentiment before. Can anyone explain to me exactly why the use of the word "retarded" is offensive? I mean literally explain it to me, assuming that I'm someone who doesn't find it "obviously offensive."

It's become a blunt, rather crude term for the description of someone whose cognitive abilities are substandard, and thus can feel rather impolitic to use it around people directly or indirectly so afflicted.

Kinda like if might be awkward if you referred to software that wasn't fully functional as "crippleware" in front of a friend that had polio.

I don't get why saying "crippleware" in front of a crippled person is offensive either. It seems that when a word becomes closely associated with a type of person or a personal trait, then somehow that word automatically becomes offensive. And yet, it doesn't happen with every descriptive word. You wouldn't think twice about calling something "lame" around the same friend with polio, would you? Or ask someone to "mute" the TV if that person had a close relative who was unable to speak?

Meh. I applaud you for being considerate to your girlfriend, but it's no reason to try to change the English language.

There is, however, reason to use the many synonyms in English in ways that are considerate to innocent people with severe problems.

The way you put it, it's impossible to disagree without appearing to denounce considerateness. But there are two things we know about this approach to language. First, it leads to mealy-mouthed, pinchy correctitude. Second, it fails utterly.

Edit: and by the way, this has nothing to do with being considerate, as a human being, to another human being.

Second, it fails utterly.

As a factual matter, I'll agree with you that the attempt to replace such terms as "degenerate" (a term I heard in a movie about politics when I was young, having no idea at first what the term meant) with terms with more favorable connotations such as "gay" often fail if the underlying societal prejudice is strong. (The term "gay" currently does seem to be transforming from a term of voluntary self-designation to a term of derision.)

But a writer still has the choice of using the least offensive term available to the writer, for whatever that is worth. And I think there is a legitimate underlying factual distinction between being "retarded" (physiologically incapable of thinking as a normal adult does) and being "stupid" (perhaps being too lazy to apply adult thought to important issues).

A writer should use the most alive language available. Surely you are aware of what happens to people who go down the path of taking offense at common usage. Now that's degeneracy they ought to make movies to warn people about.

It's interesting that the nitpickers usually pick on informal language (slang) because that's where language is least encumbered by preconception. To try to reform society by purging usage is like telling characters on TV that they ought to do things differently: the show finished production before you even knew about it (and oh yeah, the characters can't hear you).

Language is marvelously protean. New currents and wellsprings are bubbling up all the time. They're considered ignorant and incorrect until they achieve critical mass. There's nothing to be gained, unless one has the ego of a schoolmistress, from moralizing about this. (On the other hand, I'd say there's a good deal to be gained by stripping down official language in the way that Orwell is known for.) Although I shouldn't be so hard on these people; they make great comedy possible.

By the way, you touched on a hobby horse of mine. The word "gay" is such a fascinating case. It's shifting its meaning again, from "homosexual" to "lame". The sensitive cultural critics behind South Park captured this perfectly in their line, "this is gayer than sex with men". What's fascinating is that this is happening just as our society is becoming tolerant of homosexuals at an astounding historical pace. It's as if the straight world is striking the following bargain: "you can get married, but we get the word 'gay'".

"The sensitive cultural critics behind South Park captured this perfectly in their line, "this is gayer than sex with men"."

I think The Simpsons beat them to that one: "You kissed a girl! That is so gay!" (said to Nelson Muntz by one of the other bullies)

Also, having sex with men doesn't necessarily make you gay. :-P

It does if you are Cartman :)

Good find re the Simpsons! I will remember that one.

Edit: what I love about those two lines is that not only are they equally brilliant, they are brilliant in a way that captures the difference between the two shows.