|
|
 |
Product Categories |
|
|
|
Shop by Brand |
|
|
|
|
|
Information |
|
|
|
|
| Latest News |
 |
|
 |
|
November 03 : Why Should Babies Nap |
|
Why Should Babies Nap
By David Barret.
New York Time
________________________________________
Naptime is a blessing for you and your baby. Here are some tips on how to make this important time as beneficial as possible for you both.
Why Should Babies Nap?
Naps are not just important for their restorative value, although that is their most obvious benefit. Children’s sleep expert Elizabeth Pantley describes some of the other advantages to napping:
• Adequate sleep is important in brain development. Some research has shown that daytime napping may help move new information into a more permanent place in a child’s memory.
• Napping can affect nighttime sleep. A child who needs a nap but does not get one can become overtired and have trouble falling asleep at night.
• Studies have shown that children who nap have longer attention spans and are less fussy than those who do not nap.
• A child’s biology dictates that a nap is necessary after midday, when energy levels tend to drop. (Adults feel the same way, but sleep is not usually an option for them.)
• Sleep releases stress-fighting hormones.
• Napping can help a child catch up on sleep if their previous night’s sleep was disrupted.
When Should Babies Nap?
The answer to this question varies according to the age of the baby. Newborns, easily overwhelmed by their new surroundings, tend to nap frequently. They often have catnaps throughout the day, with a couple of longer naps in the morning and afternoon. Between three and six months, babies settle into a routine of morning and afternoon naps. This age presents the ideal opportunity for you to establish a nap routine that works with your baby’s biological signals for rest.
Young babies between the ages of three and six months generally have one morning nap of about an hour, and one afternoon nap of slightly longer duration, usually closer to two hours in length. Some babies are more comfortable with three shorter naps of about 45 minutes each. The number of naps is not as important as the total amount of sleep and the general disposition of your baby: if Baby is cranky, chances are she is not getting enough sleep.
Morning and afternoon naps continue throughout the first year. Between one and two years of age, most children can go without a morning nap, but still need an afternoon nap. The afternoon nap typically continues until about the age of four.
As for the exact time a baby should nap, that is mostly Baby’s decision. Some sleep experts advise that when trying to establish a nap schedule, you plan to put Baby down about two hours after she wakes in the morning and again after a midday meal. Babies who require a third nap usually take it in the early evening.
Most babies indicate they are ready for a nap through a variety of signals, discussed later in this article. If you try to put a baby down when he is not tired, chances are pretty slim that he’ll fall asleep. Heed Baby’s signs and try to work with his natural sleep cycles and you’ll find a good basis for a nap routine.
How Long Should Naps Be?
Sleep is a critical component of babies’ mental and physical development so it is important that they get enough of it. Babies will usually become tired on their own and will sleep when they need to, but some parents like to create a schedule. Do what works best for you – let Baby dictate sleep time or set a schedule. The key is to make sure that your baby gets the sleep she needs.
The amount of naptime required decreases as a baby gets older. At four months, a baby needs about 4 to 6 hours of naptime. At six months, babies tend to nap a little less, needing about 3 to 4 hours. By his first birthday, Baby needs about 2 to 3 hours of naptime and he may get it from one nap or two. Once she is into her toddler years, your little one will need only one nap of about 1 to 2 hours.
Sleep Signs – Knowing When Baby is Ready for a Nap
Learning your baby’s sleep signs is extremely important. If you do not recognize them or choose to ignore them, the “sleep window" will close and you’ll end up with a cranky, overtired baby who cannot fall asleep.
Signs to look for include:
• rubbing eyes
• yawning
• slowing down and quieting down
• fussiness
• thumb sucking or reaching for a pacifier or sleep toy
• wanting to nurse or have a bottle
In an ideal world, when Baby is ready to sleep, you would be able to put her down and let her fall asleep. For some parents, this does actually happen. For the unlucky ones it does not. Depending on the sleep habits of your baby, you may want to establish a nap routine that resembles, but is not exactly the same as, your nighttime routine. You might read a short book, play some soft music, or rock the baby to sleep. If your baby seems ready to drop as soon as his head hits the mattress, skip the routine and just put him down. You might be pleasantly surprised by his ability to drift off by himself.
When Baby Won’t Nap
There are a variety of reasons why a baby won’t nap. If a baby is rested and getting up earlier than you prefer, there is little you can do. If you feel that your baby is not getting the rest she needs, you may need to change your routine.
Often, resistance to naps comes when babies are overtired. Make sure to heed your baby’s sleep signs, as discussed above, and get her to bed when she is starting to act tired.
If your baby wakes early and is in need of more rest, try getting him to go back to sleep. Depending on your philosophy about babies and sleep, you can rock him or just gently pat him on the back and let him fall back to sleep on his own.
Make sure Baby’s sleep environment is conducive to sleep. A dark and slightly cool room is best.
Older babies may be waking early simply because they do not need as many naps as you are giving them. Try dropping a nap and see if that helps. |
|
Discuss this item in our news forum>> |
|
|
|
September 29 : Harvard Researchers Say Children Need Touching and Attention |
|
Harvard Researchers Say Children Need Touching and Attention
by Alvin Powell, Contributing Writer,
Harvard Gazette
America's "let them cry" attitude toward children may lead to more fears and
tears among adults, according to two Harvard Medical School researchers.
Instead of letting infants cry, American parents should keep their babies
close, console them when they cry, and bring them to bed with
them, where they'll feel safe, according to Michael Commons and Patrice
Miller, researchers at the Medical School's Department of Psychiatry.
The pair examined child-rearing practices here and in other cultures and say
the widespread American practice of putting babies in separate beds - even
separate rooms - and not responding to their cries may lead to more
incidents of post-traumatic stress and panic disorders among American
adults.
The early stress due to separation causes changes in infant brains that
makes future adults more susceptible to stress in their lives, say Commons
and Miller.
"Parents should recognize that having their babies cry unnecessarily harms
the baby permanently," Commons said. "It changes the nervous system so
they're sensitive to future trauma."
Their work is unique because it takes a cross-disciplinary approach,
examining brain function, emotional learning in infants, and cultural
differences, according to Charles R. Figley, director of the Traumatology
Institute at Florida State University and editor of The Journal of
Traumatology.
"It is very unusual but extremely important to find this kind of
interdisciplinary and multidisciplinary research report," Figley said. "It
accounts for cross-cultural differences in children's emotional response and
their ability to cope with stress, including traumatic stress."
___________
"Parents should recognize that having their babies cry unnecessarily harms
the baby permanently. It changes the nervous system so they're sensitive to
future trauma."
- Dr. Michael Commons, Dept of Psychiatry, Harvard
___________
Figley said their work illuminates a route of further study and could have
implications for everything from parents' efforts to intellectually
stimulate infants to painful practices such as circumcision. Commons has
been a lecturer and research associate at the Medical School's Department of
Psychiatry since 1987 and is a member of the Department's Program in
Psychiatry and the Law.
Miller has been a research associate at Harvard Medical School's Program in
Psychiatry and the Law since 1994 and an assistant professor of psychology
at Salem State College since 1993. She received master's and doctorate
degrees in education from Harvard's Graduate School of Education.
The pair say that American child-rearing practices are influenced by fears
that children will grow up dependent. But parents are on the wrong track.
Physical contact and reassurance will make children more secure when they
finally head out on their own and make them better able to form their own
adult relationships.
"We've stressed independence so much that it's having some very negative
side effects," Miller said.
The two gained the spotlight in February when they presented their ideas at
the American Association for the Advancement of Science's annual meeting in
Philadelphia.
In a paper presented at the meeting, Commons and Miller contrasted American
child-rearing practices with those of other cultures, particularly the Gusii
tribe of Kenya. Gusii mothers sleep with their babies and respond rapidly
when the baby cries.
"Gusii mothers watching videotapes of U.S. mothers were upset by how long it
took these mothers to respond to infant crying," Commons and Miller said in
their paper on the subject.
The way we are brought up colors our entire society, Commons and Miller say.
Americans in general don't like to be touched and pride themselves on
independence to the point of isolation, even when undergoing a difficult or
stressful time.
Despite the conventional wisdom that babies should learn to be alone, Miller
said she believes many parents "cheat," keeping the baby in the room with
them, at least initially. In addition, once the child can crawl around, she
believes many find their way into their parents' room on their own.
American parents shouldn't worry about this behavior or be afraid to baby
their babies, Commons and Miller said. Parents should feel free to sleep
with their infant children, to keep their toddlers nearby, perhaps on a
mattress in the same room, and to comfort a baby when it cries.
"There are ways to grow up and be independent without putting babies through
this trauma," Commons said. "My advice is to keep the kids secure so they
can grow up and take some risks."
Besides fears of dependence, other factors have helped form our childrearing
practices, including fears that children would interfere with sex if they
shared their parents' room and doctors' concerns that a baby would be
injured by a parent rolling on it if it shared their bed, the pair said. The
nation's growing wealth has helped the trend toward separation by giving
families the means to buy larger homes with separate rooms for children.
The result, Commons and Miller said, is a nation that doesn't like caring
for its own children, a violent nation marked by loose, nonphysical
relationships.
"I think there's a real resistance in this culture to caring for children,
"Commons said. "Punishment and abandonment has never been a good way to get
warm, caring, independent people."
Reprinted with permission of Dr. Commons. |
|
Discuss this item in our news forum>> |
|
|
|
|
July 09 : Five Things to Help Avoid Sudden Infant Death Syndrome (SIDS) |
|
Five Things to Help Avoid Sudden Infant Death Syndrome (SIDS)
SIDS is a frightening word to parents of newborns. There is so little concrete knowledge about SIDS, as every case is different. However, there are a number of things you can do to help reduce the chances of your infant dying of SIDS. Here are five ways you can reduce the risk of SIDS.
1. Good prenatal care is one of the first things you can do to help prevent SIDS. A low birth weight can often contribute to SIDS. So mothers who are careful about their prenatal care and nutrition can have a healthier baby. Avoiding smoking, drugs and alcohol while pregnant also reduces the risk of SIDS. It has also been shown that having two babies in one year can raise the risk of SIDS for the second infant. Teen mothers have a higher risk of their infant dying of SIDS.
2. Having the right bedding for the crib is crucial to reducing the risk of SIDS. Putting the baby to sleep on the back, and using a firm mattress with a tight fitting sheet, is the first step. Despite everyone loving those cute comforter and bumper pad sets, they are best left out of the crib. The bumper pad reduces the amount of fresh air circulating around the baby. Both sleeping on the stomach and the comforter being too close to the face can cause the baby to rebreathe too much carbon dioxide, which is a significant factor in SIDS.
Use sleepers or baby sacks to help keep the baby warm on cold nights instead of a blanket. However, if the infant is too warm, that can also contribute to SIDS. It is important to find the proper balance.
3. Some studies have shown that pacifiers help reduce the occurrence of SIDS. The pacifier helps keep the air passage open. It also helps keep things away from the infant's mouth and nose. This can help prevent suffocation.
4. Avoiding second-hand smoke also reduces the risk of SIDS. Studies by the Surgeon General have shown that, "Infants who die from SIDS tend to have higher concentration of nicotine in their lungs and higher levels of cotinine (a biological marker for second-hand smoke exposure) than infants who die from other causes."
5. Breastfeeding has also been shown to help reduce the risk of SIDS, although some experts do not feel it is the breastfeeding itself that reduces the risk of SIDS. However, there are fewer breastfed babies than formula babies who have died of SIDS. Breastfed babies tend to have a lower rate of respiratory and gastrointestinal infections, both of which can contribute to SIDS.
While there are no guarantees and no single definable cause of SIDS, anything you can do to reduce the risks is worth it. Most of the things are common sense and good health habits. Take the time to make a few changes to prevent a possible life of heartache. |
|
Discuss this item in our news forum>> |
|
|
|
|
June 25 : Case Study: Autism and Vaccines |
|
Monday, Mar. 10, 2008
Case Study: Autism and Vaccines
By Claudia Wallis
What happened to little, red-haired Hannah Poling is
hardly unique in the world of autism. She had an
uneventful birth; she seemed to be developing normally
— smiling, babbling, engaging in imaginative play,
speaking about 20 words by 19 months. And then, right
after receiving a bunch of vaccines, she fell ill and
it all stopped. Hannah, now 9, recovered from her
acute illness but she lost her words, her eye contact
and, in a matter of months, began exhibiting the
repetitive behaviors and social withdrawal that typify
autism. "Something happened after the vaccines," says
her mom, Terry Poling, who is a registered nurse and
an attorney. "She just deteriorated and never came
back."
Parents of kids like Hannah have been fingering
vaccines — and, in particular, the mercury-based
vaccine preservative thimerosal — as a cause of autism
for over a decade, but researchers have repeatedly
failed to find a link.
What's unique about Hannah's case is that for the
first time federal authorities have conceded a
connection between her autistic symptoms and the
vaccines she received, though the connection is by no
means simple. A panel of medical evaluators at the
Department of Health and Human Services concluded that
Hannah had been injured by vaccines — and recommended
that her family be compensated for the injuries. The
panel said that Hannah had an underlying cellular
disorder that was aggravated by the vaccines, causing
brain damage with features of autism spectrum disorder
(ASD).
A special federal vaccine court has yet to award
damages, but the recommendation, made public last
week, is causing a sensation in the autism advocacy
community. The Polings, who live in Athens, Ga., were
originally part of a group of nearly 5,000 families
with autistic children seeking damages through the
National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program. The
other cases remain before the court.
The Poling case is also causing deep concern among
public health officials, eager to reassure parents
that vaccines are safe and, indeed, hugely beneficial.
In a public statement on Friday, Dr. Julie Gerberding,
director of the Centers for Disease Control and
Prevention (CDC), insisted that "the government has
made absolutely no statement about indicating that
vaccines are the cause of autism, as this would be a
complete mischaracterization of any of the science
that we have at our disposal today."
Gerberding and other health authorities point out that
the benefits of vaccines far exceed their risks. They
also note that thimerosal was eliminated from
routinely administered childhood vaccines manufactured
after 2001, and yet autism rates have continued to
climb. The current CDC estimate is that 1 of 150
American children has an autism spectrum disorder.
Nonetheless, there's no denying that the court's
decision to award damages to the Poling family puts a
chink — a question mark — in what had been an
unqualified defense of vaccine safety with regard to
autism. If Hannah Poling had an underlying condition
that made her vulnerable to being harmed by vaccines,
it stands to reason that other children might also
have such vulnerabilities.
But there are circumstances that make Hannah's case a
bit unusual. For one thing, she received an unusually
large number of vaccines in 2000 (when thimerosal was
still in use). Because of a series of ear infections,
Hannah had fallen behind in the vaccine schedule, so
in a single day she was given five inoculations
covering a total of nine diseases: measles, mumps,
rubella, polio, varicella, diphtheria, pertussis,
tetanus, and Haemophilus influenzae. "That was just
too many vaccines," says Terry Poling. "I didn't find
out for several months that they had thimerosal, which
contains mercury, a powerful neurotoxin. Had I known,
I never would have allowed it to be injected into my
child."
Another confounding issue in Hannah's case is the
finding that she suffers from a mitochondrial disorder
— a dysfunction in basic cell metabolism. Mitochondria
serve as power generators for each cell in the body,
converting food and oxygen into energy. There are a
wide range of these disorders, causing symptoms that
vary widely but can include muscle weakness, cardiac
or liver disease, diabetes, developmental delays and
susceptibility to infection. In Hannah's case, the
vaccine court determined that the underlying
dysfunction of her mitochondria put her at an
increased risk of injury from vaccines.
That decision, however, comes as a surprise to experts
on mitochondrial disorders. In response to the Poling
case, the United Mitochondrial Disease Foundation has
released a statement saying, "There are no scientific
studies documenting that childhood vaccinations cause
mitochondrial diseases or worsen mitochondrial disease
symptoms."
Dr. John Shoffner, the Atlanta-based neurologist who
identified Hannah Poling's mitochondrial disorder, is
"genuinely puzzled" by the court's judgment. Shoffner,
who has been studying and treating these disorders for
20 years, says it's impossible to say whether Hannah's
mitochondrial disorder was, in fact, a pre-existing
condition that set the stage for her autism (as the
government contends) or if it developed along with her
autism. A specialist in mitochondrial disorders, he is
investigating the relationship between autism and
these disorders and plans to present a paper on the
topic at the annual meeting of the American Academy of
Neurology in April. "In some subset of people with ASD
— a small group of patients, I think — mitochondrial
dysfunction is an important part of their disease. But
it's too early to say whether it gets the ball rolling
or if it comes about after the ball got rolling."
Experts on autism spectrum disorders believe that most
cases are caused by a combination of genetic
vulnerabilities and environmental factors. There may
be hundreds of roads to autism, involving numerous
combinations of genes and external factors.
Could thimerosal or some other aspect of vaccines be
one of these factors? "It's always possible that
there's a small subset of kids that have this
vulnerability," says Dr. Isaac Pessah, director of the
Center for Children's Environmental Health and Disease
Prevention at the University of California, Davis.
Pessah's lab is looking at dozens of possible
environmental factors, including pesticides, plastics
and flame-retardants. "This is a very emotional
debate," he says, "and we need more research directed
at these questions."
It's difficult to draw any clear lessons from the case
of Hannah Poling, other than the dire need for more
research. One plausible conclusion is that
pediatricians should avoid giving small children a
large number of vaccines at once, even if they are
thimerosal-free. Young children have an immature
immune system that's ill-equipped to handle an
overload, says Dr. Judy Van de Water, an immunologist
who works with Pessah at U.C. Davis. "Some vaccines,
such as those aimed at viral infections, are designed
to ramp up the immune system at warp speed," she says.
"They are designed to mimic the infection. So you can
imagine getting nine at one time, how sick you could
be." In addition, she says, there's some evidence,
that children who develop autism may have immune
systems that are particularly slow to mature.
Van de Water worries that current vaccine schedules
may be overly aggressive for some children. She
suggests that parents who are concerned about vaccine
safety ask their pediatricians to give fewer at a
time. And, she adds, don't vaccinate a child when he
or she is ill.
Hannah Poling is now a third grader in public school,
working one-on-one with teachers in a special-ed
classroom. She continues to struggle with the effects
of autism and also has seizures. Her parents are
hoping her case will spur additional research into the
causes of autism, including the roles of vaccines and
mitochondrial disorders.
"My daughter's case raises more questions than it
answers," concedes her father, Dr. Jon Poling, a
neurologist who also has a Ph.D. in biophysics. Poling
believes in the importance of vaccinating children:
"Vaccines are one of the most important advances in
the history of medicine," he says, "but people need to
know there is a risk to every medicine. There may be a
small percentage of people who are susceptible to
injury." He and his wife would like to see thimerosal
eliminated from flu vaccines, which continue to be
given to children and pregnant women, a fact that, he
thinks, could be one reason autism rates haven't
declined. And he urges pediatricians to take a hard
look at the schedule on which vaccines are given. "I
think we need a grassroots movement among
pediatricians to be more conservative, and not give so
many shots at once."
Find this article at:
•
[url]http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1721109,00.html[/url] |
|
Discuss this item in our news forum>> |
|
|
|
|
June 02 : Germs may play role in sudden baby deaths |
|
LONDON - A baffling phenomenon known as sudden infant death syndrome is one of the leading causes of death for children under 1. Now, researchers say they may have found a contributing factor: bacteria.
They found potentially dangerous bacteria such as Staphylococcus aureus and E. coli in nearly half of all babies who died suddenly and without explanation over a decade at a London hospital. Their findings are in Friday's Lancet medical journal.
"This may be another piece to the puzzle,'' said Marian Willinger, a SIDS expert at the U.S. National Institute of Child Health and Human Development who was not connected to the British study.
The researchers cautioned, however, that while the bacteria were found in the SIDS babies, that does not necessarily mean the bugs were responsible. Bacterial infections have long been suspected by some doctors to play a role in SIDS.
"We don't know whether it's a cause or if it's identifying another potential risk factor,'' said Dr. Nigel Klein, a professor at the Great Ormond Street Hospital for Children, where the study was conducted, and one of the paper's authors.
He said that the higher level of bacteria might be evidence of another condition that killed the baby, such as a room that was too hot or had poor ventilation. Or it may have been coincidental.
A SIDS diagnosis means that no other cause of death can be found in an otherwise healthy infant who dies suddenly, usually in their sleep. In the United States, SIDS kills more than 2,000 infants every year.
The researchers used autopsy samples from 470 infants who died suddenly and unexpectedly between 1996 and 2005. They found dangerous bacteria in 181 babies, or nearly half of the 365 whose deaths were unexplained. There were similar bacteria in about a quarter (14 of 53) of the babies who died of known causes, excluding those who died of bacterial infections.
Bacteria found in lungs, spleens
Most of the bacteria were detected in the babies' lungs and spleens.
At birth, mothers transfer some of their antibodies against infection to their babies. But when babies are from 8 to 10 weeks old, the maternal antibodies have nearly run out and the babies typically have not started producing enough of their own.
That could make them particularly vulnerable to bacterial infections, said James Morris, a pathologist at the Royal Infirmary in Lancaster, who co-authored an accompanying commentary in the journal.
SIDS typically strikes when babies are between 8 and 10 weeks old. |
|
Discuss this item in our news forum>> |
|
|
|
|
May 27 : New Product |
|
Hi,
We just got these wipe warmers in, they are fantastic...
This low-voltage dispenser locks in moisture while providing warm, comfy wipes without the problem of browning and drying out. An innovative vertical design takes up less space on a changing table, and the included bracket even allows you to mount the dispenser on a wall! A built-in soft light ends the need for the harsh glare of bright room lights, and shuts off automatically after 10 minutes. Viewing window on front lets you keep track of when dispenser needs to be refilled. Accommodates all baby wipes |
|
Discuss this item in our news forum>> |
|
|
|
|
|
|
April 17 : A top obstetrician on why men should NEVER be at the birth of their child. Part 2 |
|
This could just be a night at the pub, or a day playing golf when their child is a day old.
I've known of perfectly well-balanced men who held their wife's hand through labour then left the next day never to return again.
And in the most graphic example, one perfectly healthy man had his first experience of schizophrenia two days after watching his wife give birth. Was this his way of escaping reality?
Generally speaking, I have noticed that the more the man has participated at the birth and the worse his wife's labour has been, the higher the risks of post-natal "symptoms" are.
Of course, this is not the case for all men, but it seems without doubt that some men are at risk of being unwell or depressed due to having seen their partners labour.
The final question I would like to see answered is what, if a man is present at birth, will be the effect on the sexual attraction he feels towards his wife over the long term?
When men first started standing at their partner's side during labour, I remember my mother's generation saying, very matter of factly, that the couple's intimate life would be ruined as a result.
And, given that the key to eroticism is a degree of mystery, I am left believing they had a point.
There are many things we do in private in order to preserve a degree of modesty and mystery.
And, for the benefit of our sex lives, it may be worth adding childbirth to this list.
I have three children and wasn't present at any of their births.
My first two were born before it was considered normal for a man to be at the birth of their child. But my youngest son was born in 1985, at home.
As it happens, at the exact moment our son arrived in the world, the midwife was on her way down the street and I, having made my excuses realising he was about to be born, was fiddling with the thermostat on the central heating boiler downstairs.
My partner did not know it, but I had given her the exceptionally rare, but ideal situation in which to give birth: she felt secure, she knew the midwife was minutes away and I was downstairs, yet she had complete privacy and no one was watching her.
If there are any doubts, we only have to look across the rest of the mammal world in order to see that no other female, save the human female, invites her sexual partner to witness her giving birth.
Of course, it would not be possible for women to give birth alone.
But the optimum situation for women is to give birth with an experienced midwife, or another woman - known as a doula.
The key to the perfect birthing partner is finding a mother figure who can help, keep a low profile and remain silent.
It is only 35 years since men first entered the delivery room, yet we have welcomed them in without question.
At the present time, when birth is more difficult and longer than ever, when more women need drugs or Caesareans, we have to dare to smash the limits of political correctness and ask whether men should really be present at birth.
When we take into consideration the effects of this on male and female, it seems the answer is not.
It is time to go back to basics, and turn modern convention on its head.
When it comes to the delivery suite, men would be well advised to stay away |
|
Discuss this item in our news forum>> |
|
|
|
|
April 17 : A top obstetrician on why men should NEVER be at the birth of their child |
|
Check out this controversial article:
A top obstetrician on why men should NEVER be at the birth of their child
By MICHEL ODENT - More by this author »
This week, the Mail reported a new survey which said fathers should be allowed to stay overnight in hospital on the day their baby is born.
But how much should a man be involved in his child's birth? Leading obstetrician Michel Odent has been instrumental in influencing childbirth practices for decades.
Here, with a view that will outrage many - but will strike a chord with thousands of others - he describes why he believes that when a woman goes into labour, her partner should stay well away.
For many years, I have not been able to speak openly about my views that the presence of a father in a delivery room is not only unnecessary, but also hinders labour.
To utter such a thing over the past two decades would have been regarded as heresy, and flies in the face of popular convention.
But having been involved in childbirth for 50 years, and having been in charge of 15,000 births, I have reached the stage where I feel it is time to state what I - and many midwives and fellow obstetricians - privately consider the obvious.
That there is little good to come for either sex from having a man at the birth of a child.
For her, his presence is a hindrance, and a significant factor in why labours are longer, more painful and more likely to result in intervention than ever.
As for the effect on a man - well, was I surprised to hear a friend of mine state that watching his wife giving birth had started a chain of events that led to the couple's divorce?
Scroll down for more ...
Women should be left alone to give birth in peace without the distraction of their partner at their bedside
Or another lady describing how the day after her husband had watched her deliver their child, he had fled to his hometown of Rome, and never returned again?
For many men, the emotional fallout of watching their partner have their baby can never be overcome.
When I was first involved in obstetrics in the Fifties, it was unheard of for a man to be present as their child was born.
Childbirth was predominately a woman's business - usually carried out at home - and while a man may be in the vicinity at the time of labour, he would usually be found in the kitchen, boiling copious amounts of water, and therefore would miss the actual event.
However, by 1970, a handful of women started to ask for their husbands to be present at the birth, a shift that began to occur in many Western countries at about the same time.
There are a variety of reasons for this, including the fact that birth was being increasingly concentrated in hospitals rather than at home, and the rise of the smaller nuclear family meant women increasingly turned to their husbands for support in all areas of their life, rather than relying on their mothers or aunts.
What we didn't anticipate at the time was that this occasional demand from a handful of women would, in a matter of years, become doctrine.
By the late Seventies, all pregnant women were saying they could not imagine giving birth without their husband at their side.
And not only was the husband now nearly always present at birth, but with his wife clasping his hand during labour and screaming out for reassurance, he became an active participant.
At the time, it was widely believed there were many benefits to be had from the father's presence.
It was said sharing such an experience would strengthen ties between the couple and help the father bond with his baby.
It was said his reassurance would make birth easier, and that the rate of intervention in pregnancy would decrease as a result.
This shift to having the father in the delivery room was one which was shrouded by optimism.
However, little scientific study was conducted to find out if there was any truth to these claims.
And even at the time, I had my reservations. I didn't want to judge, but I knew from experience that the presence of a man is not always a positive thing.
Fast-forward to today, and there is still a lack of scientific study on this subject.
But having been in charge of thousands of births, at homes, in hospitals, in the UK, in France, with the father present, with him absent, I have reached my own conclusions.
I am more and more convinced that the participation of the father is one of the main reasons for long and difficult labours.
And there are a number of basic physiological reasons for this.
First, a labouring woman needs to be protected against any stimulation of the thinking part of her brain - the neocortex - for labour to proceed with any degree of ease.
This part of the brain needs to take a back seat and allow the primal "unthinking" part of the brain connected to basic vital functions to take over.
A woman in labour needs to be in a private world where she doesn't have to think or talk.
Yet, motivated by a desire to "share the experience", the man asks questions and offers words of reassurance and advice.
In doing so, he denies his partner the quiet mind that she needs.
The second reason is that the father's release of the stress hormone adrenaline as he watches his partner labour causes her anxiety, and prevents her from relaxing.
No matter how much he tries to smile and appear relaxed, he cannot help but feel anxious. And the release of adrenaline is contagious.
It has been proven that it is physically impossible to be in a complete state of relaxation if there is an individual standing next to you who is tense and full of adrenaline.
The effect of this is that, with a man present, a woman cannot be as relaxed as she needs to be during labour, and hence the process becomes longer and more difficult.
We must keep in mind that mammals cannot release oxytocin - the key hormone in childbirth - when they are also being influenced by the stressful effects of hormones of the adrenaline family.
I have been with many women as they struggle to give birth with their partner at their side.
Yet the moment he leaves the room, the baby arrives. Afterwards, they say it was just "bad luck" he wasn't there the moment their child was born.
Luck, however, is little to do with it. The truth is that without him there, the woman is finally able to relax into labour in a way that speeds up delivery.
After birth, too, a woman needs a few moments alone with her baby, particularly between the time the child is born and she delivers the placenta.
And this is not just about her need to bond with her baby.
Physically, in order to deliver the placenta with ease, her levels of oxytocin - the hormone of love - need to peak.
This happens if she has a moment in which she can forget everything about the world, save for her baby, and if she has time in which she can look into the baby's eyes, make contact with its skin and take in its smell without any distractions.
Often, as soon as a baby is born, men cannot help but say something or try to touch the baby.
Their interference at this key moment is more often than not the main cause for a difficult delivery of the placenta, too.
But it is not just the fact that men slow down labour that makes me cautious about their presence at the birth.
There are two other important questions that I would like to see answered scientifically.
The first is, are we sure that all men can easily cope with the strong emotional reaction they have when they participate in the birth?
Over the years, I have seen something akin to post-natal depression in many men who have been present at the birth.
In its mild form, men often take to their bed in the week following the birth, complaining of everything from a stomach ache or migraine to a 24-hour bug.
Their wives, meanwhile, are up and about, caring for their baby and in good spirits, and tell me how unfortunate it is that their husband has been struck down by one ailment or another.
But it is well known by those who study depression that rather than admit a low mood, men often offer up a symptom as a reason to why they have taken to their bed.
There are also men who try to find ways to escape the reality of what they have been through. |
|
Discuss this item in our news forum>> |
|
|
|
|
April 10 : Babies who sleep less at more risk for obesity |
|
Babies who sleep less at more risk for obesity
CHICAGO - Babies who don't get enough sleep may gain too much weight, new research shows.
A Harvard study found that babies and toddlers who sleep fewer than 12 hours daily are at greater risk for being overweight in preschool, startling evidence that the link between sleep and obesity may affect even very young children.
TV viewing heightened the effect. The children who slept the least and watched the most television had the greatest chance of becoming obese.
“The two (behaviors) are acting independently. In combination, they are particularly risky,” said the study’s lead author, Dr. Elsie Taveras of Harvard Medical School.
The findings, published in April’s Archives of Pediatrics & Adolescent Medicine, are based on mothers’ reports of their babies’ sleep habits and TV viewing, and direct measures of the children’s height, weight and skinfold thickness.
Starting when the babies were 6 months old, mothers were asked how long their children napped during the day and how long they slept at night. Moms were asked again when the children were 1 and 2 years old. They were asked about TV time when the children reached age 2.
The researchers combined the sleep answers to find an average pattern for each child during the first two years of life. They found 586 of the children slept an average of 12 or more hours a day and 329 of the children slept less than that.
Among the long sleepers, 7 percent were obese at age 3.
The short sleepers fared worse. Twelve percent of them became obese 3-year-olds. Adding TV to the picture, 17 percent of those who slept less than 12 hours a day and watched two or more hours of television a day were obese by the time they were 3.
Obesity was defined as having a body mass index in the 95th percentile or above. BMI is a measure that combines height and weight. A 3-year-old who is 3 feet, 3 inches tall and 40 pounds would be considered obese.
Double the risk for obesity
The researchers took into account other risk factors for obesity, including TV viewing, and still found the children who slept fewer than 12 hours a day had a doubled risk of being obese at age 3 than the other children.
Sleep’s impact on appetite hormones may explain the effect, Taveras said. In prior studies, sleep-deprived adults produced more ghrelin, a hormone that promotes hunger, and less leptin, a hormone that signals fullness.
TV viewing is thought to increase the risk of obesity both because it takes time away from calorie-burning play and because of food ads for snacks and fast food.
The families in the new study lived in Massachusetts and had relatively high incomes and education levels, making it difficult to apply the findings to everyone, Taveras acknowledged. Sleep researchers who read the study said it adds to growing evidence of the link between poor sleep and obesity. A study published last year found that every additional hour per night a third-grader spends sleeping reduces the child’s chances of being obese in sixth grade by 40 percent.
“The main message for parents is that there has to be regularity in sleep in children. It’s very important to maintain a schedule,” said Dr. Michelle Cao of Stanford University’s sleep disorders clinic. She wasn’t involved in the study but co-wrote an accompanying editorial in the journal.
Click for related content
Discuss: Your tips for getting baby to sleep?
Confessions of a crazed, modern mom | Poll
Exercise during pregnancy benefits baby too
Taveras recommended practices that teach infants to fall asleep on their own, putting them to bed when they’re drowsy but not fully asleep.
Pat Prinz of the University of Washington, who wasn’t involved in the study, said parents who rely on day care should make sure their toddlers have plenty of time to run, jump and play.
“The more active they are in the day, the better they’ll sleep at night,” Prinz said. But she cautioned that genetics may play a role in sleep and a person’s genetic makeup may limit how much sleep duration can be improved |
|
Discuss this item in our news forum>> |
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
