Complaint Review: BabyTan - Seattle Washington

Um, why can't I find this place? I live really close to the original poster, so I looked the place up online. I was thinking they might be able to tan my cat. He's a Cornish Rex (HAIRLESS, of course) and it's been really hot around here lately. I was thinking that they might be able to give him some protection from the UV rays with some spray on tan stuff. I get spray tanned all the time, and it always turns me brown, just like that awesome shade you find in beef jerky. What do you think? Maybe you fed your baby too much Carrot baby food, and thats why he turned orange? (it can happen...)

Im confused. Was the BabyTan experience meant to somehow protect the child from the sun? If you still had to use sunscreens and clothing to cover the baby after the procedure, why not do that in the first place? It would have saved time, money, and energy. Ive heard of adults who use self tanners for cosmetic purposes, but to subject a baby to it, a BABY, is just wrong, and PURELY a benefit for the parent who wants to tote around a nice, tan baby to show off, take pictures of, etc... So was it the orange skin on the baby, or the fact you lost money that got to you? That place should be out of business, and you shouldn't get a refund. Just think of it as a lesson learned, and cover that poor little baby up in sunscreen.

all I want to say is on your first entry has anyone noticed she wrote she wanted her baby to "FIT IN", well this is not high school my dear. this is a living very delicate package. Did you ever think if your baby might be allergic? WAKE UP HONEY- FYI-sunscreen prevents burning DUH

It looked to me that some of those commenting did not read before speaking their mind. Nancy says that she wanted her child not to get burned and that is why she went to "BabyTan". When she mentions her baby turning orange, this automatically tells you that UV ray were not used. This is common sense and something that everyone should have, and I would think that someone it the medical field would have. I have some medical back ground and this is one of the first things that was taught...if you don't have commond sense, then you would fail the class. From what I read, Nancy was doing what she thought would help protect her baby while on vacation. I am a mother of 2 boys, and we went swimming all the time, ever since they were babies. I used a lot of sun screen and kept them in the shade as much as possible when they weren't in the pool. They did get tanned, but that was over time. It seems to me that since Nancy didn't have the time to get them used to the sun over a period of time, she did what she thought was the next best thing to protect her baby. A lot of people think that artificial tanning would protect from the sun, even though it doesn't. She took her child in good faith that this would help, and instead, she ended up with an orange baby that still was unprotected from the sun. The Point of her complaint seems to be that the BabyTan did not fullfill their end of the 'deal', not only that, but made things worse. They should at the very least refund her money and give her a very big, heartfelt appology to her.

It looked to me that some of those commenting did not read before speaking their mind. Nancy says that she wanted her child not to get burned and that is why she went to "BabyTan". When she mentions her baby turning orange, this automatically tells you that UV ray were not used. This is common sense and something that everyone should have, and I would think that someone it the medical field would have. I have some medical back ground and this is one of the first things that was taught...if you don't have commond sense, then you would fail the class. From what I read, Nancy was doing what she thought would help protect her baby while on vacation. I am a mother of 2 boys, and we went swimming all the time, ever since they were babies. I used a lot of sun screen and kept them in the shade as much as possible when they weren't in the pool. They did get tanned, but that was over time. It seems to me that since Nancy didn't have the time to get them used to the sun over a period of time, she did what she thought was the next best thing to protect her baby. A lot of people think that artificial tanning would protect from the sun, even though it doesn't. She took her child in good faith that this would help, and instead, she ended up with an orange baby that still was unprotected from the sun. The Point of her complaint seems to be that the BabyTan did not fullfill their end of the 'deal', not only that, but made things worse. They should at the very least refund her money and give her a very big, heartfelt appology to her.

It looked to me that some of those commenting did not read before speaking their mind. Nancy says that she wanted her child not to get burned and that is why she went to "BabyTan". When she mentions her baby turning orange, this automatically tells you that UV ray were not used. This is common sense and something that everyone should have, and I would think that someone it the medical field would have. I have some medical back ground and this is one of the first things that was taught...if you don't have commond sense, then you would fail the class. From what I read, Nancy was doing what she thought would help protect her baby while on vacation. I am a mother of 2 boys, and we went swimming all the time, ever since they were babies. I used a lot of sun screen and kept them in the shade as much as possible when they weren't in the pool. They did get tanned, but that was over time. It seems to me that since Nancy didn't have the time to get them used to the sun over a period of time, she did what she thought was the next best thing to protect her baby. A lot of people think that artificial tanning would protect from the sun, even though it doesn't. She took her child in good faith that this would help, and instead, she ended up with an orange baby that still was unprotected from the sun. The Point of her complaint seems to be that the BabyTan did not fullfill their end of the 'deal', not only that, but made things worse. They should at the very least refund her money and give her a very big, heartfelt appology to her.

It looked to me that some of those commenting did not read before speaking their mind. Nancy says that she wanted her child not to get burned and that is why she went to "BabyTan". When she mentions her baby turning orange, this automatically tells you that UV ray were not used. This is common sense and something that everyone should have, and I would think that someone it the medical field would have. I have some medical back ground and this is one of the first things that was taught...if you don't have commond sense, then you would fail the class. From what I read, Nancy was doing what she thought would help protect her baby while on vacation. I am a mother of 2 boys, and we went swimming all the time, ever since they were babies. I used a lot of sun screen and kept them in the shade as much as possible when they weren't in the pool. They did get tanned, but that was over time. It seems to me that since Nancy didn't have the time to get them used to the sun over a period of time, she did what she thought was the next best thing to protect her baby. A lot of people think that artificial tanning would protect from the sun, even though it doesn't. She took her child in good faith that this would help, and instead, she ended up with an orange baby that still was unprotected from the sun. The Point of her complaint seems to be that the BabyTan did not fullfill their end of the 'deal', not only that, but made things worse. They should at the very least refund her money and give her a very big, heartfelt appology to her.

With all your blabbing and not listening you probably kill more patients than you help. This site is for rip-offs and cheats, not for your fantasy world. A Nurse Practitioner is a scam devised by HMOs to give cheap medical care. You're a whole new rip-off in your own right! I bet you still use leaches, you stupid quack! Why do you think I would put make-up on or burn my own child? I NEVER SAID I DID ANY OF THOSE THINGS! I won't even dignify any more of your bizarre medical claims with a response. You should do your "profession" a favor and start helping patients instead of trolling this website like the Parent POlice. Your pediatric "chief" I'm sure has better things to do than prop up your withering self-esteem by reading your pathetic posts!

First of all, a Nurse Practitioner doesn't do bedpans. I see patients just like an MD does. In my state, I have the legal authority to write prescriptions and order procedures, so please educate yourself. Secondly, it would be even worse if your child was treated with bronzing creams, and these do not have any effect on the melanin production of an infant's skin. So you are doing no more to protect your child from burning than if you put your foundation on him. I showed your post to the pediatric chief and he was appalled. Just remember a child is a living being, not a trophy.

I have to agree with the two rebuttals posted above. It's inexcusable for a parent to willingly subject her child to injury, especially for the sake of appearances. The only thing that scares me more is that there are businesses out there encouraging this kind of stupidity for the sake of a profit. Both Nancy and BabyTan should be criminally investigated for this.

I hat eto be the one to point it out, but you DON'T have a clue what you're talking about, Ms. Nurse. Using UV is one way to get a tan, but no tannist or parent I think would be cruel enough to subject an infant to one. Many tanning salons offer UV alternatives, typically cosmetics. Whatever it does for the baby would be purely cosmetic; you would still need to use sunscreen to protect from any UV damage. Under no circumstance however should the skin turn out orange. In many states there is no one regulatory agency responsible for tanning salons. If you can't resolve this with the owner then you should contact your state Attorney General's office, specifically the COnsumer division. If they get enough complaints they might be able to help.

First off, do nurses do tans now? No? I THOUGHT NOT! Maybe if you got out of the house you would know that not all tanning methods involve sunlamps! Second of all, that's not even the point. These people did a horrible job and didn't make it right, and I'm trying to warn others about it. Nowhere did I ask for nominess for Mother of the Year to step forward with their opinions. Why don't you go back to changing bedpans and think before you mouth off next time?

Why would you deliberately want to "brown" your infant so he won't get burned when you go on vacation? An infant's skin is paper thin and extremely delicate and by exposing him to that, you are not only browning the dermis, you are also exposing him to harmful UV rays which damage the subdermal tissues. Newsflash: Brown or not, he WILL be burned if exposed to prolonged sunlight, which is harmful to an infant's eyes as well. Why do you think most people have very young children COVERED when exposed to bright sunlight. Before you say I don't have a clue what I am talking about, be aware that I am a Family Nurse Practitioner.

WHAT IS YOUR PROBLEM!!! TAKING A **BABY** TO A TANNING SALON!!! DO YOU NOT KNOW THAT TANNING IS A DANGEROUS PRACTICE THAT CAN LEAD TO SKIN CANCER? WHY ON EARTH WOULD YOU PURPOSEFULLY SUBJECT YOUR BABY TO THAT??? AND THEN TO COMPLAIN THAT HE IS TOO ORANGE AND BE ANGRY WITH THE TANNING SALON? THE TANNING SALON SHOULD BE YOUR ***LAST*** WORRY AT THIS TIME, WHAT ABOUT THE CONDITION OF YOUR SON'S SKIN AND HOW THIS IS AFFECTING HIM?? YOUR STORY IS TRULY A STORY OF CHILD ABUSE IF EVER DID I HEAR ONE. I HOPE IF ANYONE READS THIS AND KNOWS WHO YOU ARE, THAT THEY REPORT YOU TO CHILD PROTECTIVE SERVICES!!! WE NEED TO GET MONSTERS LIKE YOU OFF THE STREETS AND AWAY FROM OUR SWEET INNOCENT CHILDREN!!!