We are busy working on a new website, so apologies for the lack of new articles recently.
I am busy putting together the “extended” breastfeeding article while my lovely husband creates a beautiful new site where the articles will be stored separately from a new “blog” area.

But I couldn’t let this one pass:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/10465473.stm

The study was reported as finding that:
“Women who plan home births recover more rapidly from childbirth, but there is a higher risk of their child dying”

As a woman who planned a homebirth (although X had other ideas) I researched this issue relentlessly. There is an article in the pipeline on this one…

But for now, I leave you with the NHS Choices analysis of the study that is being reported upon:

The findings are complex, and cannot simply be summed up as showing that hospital births are safer than home births. It is important to highlight that although it appears to show a greater risk of newborn deaths with home births, the absolute risk in either location is still very low (0.2% for planned home births and 0.09% for planned hospital births).
The researchers say that some of the higher mortality rate may be attributable to fewer instrumental or interventional deliveries with home deliveries. This theory cannot be proven or disproved by this research, but would need to be established by further study. Notably, although home births appeared favourable for certain maternal outcomes, the study was unable to shed any light on the risk of maternal death for either location.

And crucially:
It is also important to highlight that when the analysis only looked at homebirths that had been attended by a certified midwife, there was no difference in risk of neonatal mortality compared to hospital births.

So, for now I leave you, once again, with the sad fact that journalists often do not appear to actually read the papers they are reporting on.

It seems I can’t open a paper or my laptop at the moment without seeing another report of another baby sling being withdrawn in the U.S.

X in a Close Parent sling

Before I get into this, you should know that far more knowledgeable people than I have written about baby carrying, so this will be a whistle-stop tour. Look at the further reading links at the end if you want more info.

Why do people “wear” their babies? Is it bad for the child? Bad for the parents’ back? Is it dangerous? Is it just a celebrity following silly fad?

Continue reading

There has been lots of media coverage recently on the “crying it out” technique – giving the impression that there are two camps: one of MeanMummies who leave their babies squealing in darkened rooms until they fall asleep, exhausted (parents and baby, I expect) and a second of distinctly crunchy Earth-Mamas who gather their little ones to their ample bosoms at the slightest squeak.
Let’s face it; most of us pitch our tents somewhere between these two. But the “research” is casting confusing light on the whole crying thing – does it harm our babies if we want to try and let them “self-settle” if it means they cry for a bit? Are we risking brain damaged offspring if we need to nip to the loo and have to leave our bundle of joy wailing in the next room?

Continue reading

A recent headline in the Daily Mail proclaimed:

Baby DVDs fail to boost word power: ‘Einstein’ show could do more harm than good¹
They went on to state that toddlers watching these DVDs had worse vocabularies than those who didn’t watch them.

Is watching TV good or bad for baby?

Other headlines have added to parents’ fears that television could be bad for baby:

TV Linked to Attention Deficit
Want a smart baby? TV’s not going to help
Does watching TV cause Autism?

By the way, on that last headline (from Time in October 2006) I can assure you here and now that, no, it doesn’t.

So, is TV bad for your baby?

Continue reading

Moving onto solids – a decision made more difficult through parents having to wade through the controversy, myth, conflicting information, and out of date advice.

In America, weaning usually means stopping breast milk or formula – in the UK it means starting solid food, which is how I am using the term throughout this article.

X and I recently went to a talk from our children’s nurse on weaning. Among other things we were told that weaning may help your baby sleep through the night – specifically that not sleeping through the night may be indicative of the need to be weaned.

One parent of a 17 week old baby asked whether, as her baby was looking around when drinking her expressed breast milk, could she be unsatisfied by the milk and need weaning? She was very reluctant to wean so early, but worried about her baby. The nurse commented that, yes, weaning could be worth a try. From my experience and reading, the baby is more likely to have become more alert and interested in her surroundings. The message seemed to be that it would be OK to wean at 17 weeks.

The government guidelines used to suggest we wean at 3 months, then 4. Now the guideline is exclusive breast feeding for the first 6 months. Whether breast or formula feeding, the guidance is that babies should not be weaned onto solids until they are 6 months old. If weaning earlier, babies should not be given solids until at least 20 weeks.

Why is this? As parents we were probably weaned earlier than this and we survived! So what is the fuss about?

Continue reading

The government’s Science and Technology Sub-Committee recently heard evidence on the efficacy of Homeopathy from many experts and scientists in the field. Today, they have concluded that the NHS should cease funding homeopathy:

“It also concludes that the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) should not allow homeopathic product labels to make medical claims without evidence of efficacy…

The Committee carried out an evidence check to test if the Government’s policies on homeopathy were based on sound evidence…..the Government acknowledges there is no evidence that homeopathy works beyond the placebo effect (where a patient gets better because of their belief in the treatment).”¹

Homeopathy is a commonly suggested remedy for pregnant women, babies and children. The NHS even has four homeopathic hospitals and estimates it spends around £4million a year on homeopathic treatments² (not including running and maintaining the hospitals). The USA is alleged to have spent close to half a billion dollars on homeopathy in 1999. Personally, I have heard of people having real success with teething granules and our midwife suggested homeopathic arnica tablets post birth. Others say there is no scientific evidence that homeopathy is any more effective than taking a sugar tablet.

Why is homeopathy so revered by some and reviled by others? Should you and your baby take homeopathic remedies?

Continue reading

My first blog! I decided to write a little about co-sleeping, the research for and against, and our own choices. What started out as a little blog quickly turned into a 4000 word thesis. So, I’ve put a few extracts here and a link to the larger article, which gives much more information. I think this may be the way it is for many topics on here!

3 in the bed and the little one said…..

Co-sleeping and bed sharing: This was one of the first “controversial” areas we ventured into. There is a lot of misinformation about co-sleeping in books, on the net, and from professionals. It is very very difficult to make an evidence-based decision about bed sharing – if it is what you think you may want to do.

When pregnant I was adamant that I would never put X in bed with us. What if I rolled onto him? Don’t all the guidelines say never sleep with your baby? But I developed Bursitis in my shoulder from lifting X in and out of his Moses basket to feed him. I was knackered from trying to feed sitting up as I worried about falling asleep if I fed lying on my side. I even had raw elbows from propping myself up in bed on my elbow to check on him in the night… is he still breathing??

So, we had to make a call – do we put the baby in bed with us or not?

Continue reading