MALNUTRITION IN CHILDREN

Press, Volume LXXIV, Issue 22435, 23 June 1938, Page 8

MALNUTRITION IN CHILDREN

TO THE EDITOR OE THE PRESS. Sir, —Though professing no special knowledge of the proper feeding of infants, I claim some knowledge of how to ascertain facts on which to base theories, practice, or judgment. The attackers of the Plunket system assert that, either owing to the defects in that system, or for some other reason, there is extensive malnutrition among children at the primary schools. The supporters of that system claim that such defects in the health of the children must be due to neglect of the children after they have ceased to be under Plunket control, or that such defective children were never under such control. Each side is entering on what will be an interminable argument in defence of its principles of child nourishment, the merits of which the general public will be incapable of judging. But there is a simple method by means of which the public could judge. The Plunket Society must have a record of the children raised under its system. Let it get records of undernourished children at the schools. By comparing these records it can be ascertained how many of the undernourished children were Plunket babies, and how many were not. And let both sides publish their figures. We could then form some useful opinion on the matter. This comparison will be somewhat unfair to the Plunket system, because it is common knowledge that its organisation keeps alive many babies who have had such a bad start in life that they would otherwise die early. And it would be absurd to suggest that even its admirable system could ever put such handicapped children on an equal fooling with normal children. And such handicapped ones, still showing weakness, will be debited against the Plunket system. But we would have something to go on.—Yours, etc., CYRUS J. R. WILLIAMS. June 22, 1938.

TO THE EDTTOB OT THE PRESS. Sir, —I was much interested in the columns of this morning’s issue of “The Press’’ about artificial feeding of babies. If my memory serves me right, it was Horace Walpole who wrote, “Never be ashamed to ask a question of which you are ignorant.” Knowing how so many good souls have devoted their time to societies, etc., in the interest of rearing children. I do not intend to criticise nor condemn, because I am not an authority. So these few lines are penned only as a comparison. Having resided in this city for close on 76 years, my memory takes me back to the days of small cottages and large families, some eight, some 10. 1 myself was the eldest of seven. All mothers supplied natural food for their offspring, who were breast fed, unless through incapability or sickness, in which case what was termed a “wet nurse” was procured. This continued as a rule for about 12 months. It was a common occurrence to see a mother feeding her baby from her breast, which was treated with reverence and respect. I fail to perceive it now. Afterwards they were fed on sago and cornflour, - and when older on bread and milk, termed “sop.” When the time came for school, what distances to walk, often in bad weather, but wearing what were called “Inverness” leather gaiters, up to the knees, also “Cookham” water-tight boots. One arrived at school dry and comfortable. I am quite aware all the above will be laughed at now. I do not wish it to appear that I am an advocate of large families, knowing full well that the mothers of those days were, figuratively speaking, slaves. There is a limit. A comparison came under my notice recently of a young married man saying: “Why, if my wife were going to have a baby she would commit suicide.” Fact! Now comes the comparison, and my query: Was it all wrong? I think of those many boys and girls, whom I meet now, grown into old men and women. One sister 73, a brother past 70, others younger, “still alive to tell the tale.” Certainly many have passed "beyond the veil,” leaving many a vacant chair. In conclusion, I believe it was Mrs Hemans who wrote the lines quoted;— Who fed me on her gentle breast. And rocked me in her arms to rest, And on my Ups sweet kisses pressed? My mother. —Yours, etc., W. A. JEWELL. June 22, 1938.

TO THB EDITOR OF TUB PRESS. Sir, —I have never been one to foist my opinions on to others, but I feel I must write in defence of the Plunket system, which, at present, is the subject of some almost unbelievable articles. I should say in most cases it is the mother, and not the system, that is at fault. My boy was part naturally fed until five months, and then when my health was not good, the nurse did not hesitate to put him on to all humanised milk. I have carried out instructions faithfully and at four years old he is a good specimen of a healthy New Zealander. He had no trouble whatever with his teething and does not get colds. His three meals a day consist of ordinary foods, and include one pint of milk. His weight at four is 411 b 2oz,- height 415 inches. Regarding the hard and fast rules mentioned, I have heard the nurse say on more than one occasion that the baby belongs to the mother. The nurses can only give advice. She also advised me not to compare my instructions with some other persons, as it states clearly on the front of the first Plunket book, “These instructions are for your baby only.” I wonder if the Wellington mothers whose children were supposed to be Plunket trained produced their books showing a systematic attendance at the Plunket rooms. That some children came direct from the Karitane Hospital showed that they were either sick or undernourished through wrong feeding, as I understand they are admitted to Karitane only if something is seriously wrong, and they are taken there to be put right. Perhaps these gentlemen do not realise that this would be done absolutely free if one were not in a position to pay, although it is generally the ones who. ian least afford it that pay in full. I would like to say that I think the Plunket system wonderful, especially for women like myself, who came direct from office life ✓to running a home and rearing children. I tremble to think how I should have fared without the kind and systematic help of the Plunket nurse.—Yours, etc., K. I. RIACH. June 22, 1938.