OUR BABIES.

Evening Post, Volume LXXXI, Issue 23, 28 January 1911, Page 3

OUR BABIES.

{By Hygeia.) Published under the auspices of the Society for the Promotion of the Health of Women and Children. "It U wiser to put up a fence »t the top of a precipice than to maintain an ambulance at the bottom." ADDKESS OF PLUNKET NURSE AND i SECRETARY. Wellington— Plunket Nurse M 'Donald, 73, Aro-street. Tel. 2425. Hon. sec. Mrs. M' Vicar, 27. Brougham-street. Plunk6t Nurse's services free. HARDENING CHILDREN. i INDISCRIMINATE CONDEMNATION. There are few matters on whioh "orthodox" opinion is more unanimous than it is ! in condemning measures directed towards what is called "hardening" young children, especially babies, often without condescending to any definite details as to what it means by "hardening." Almost every book dealing with the care of infants inveighs unhesitatingly against the cruelty of attempting to "harden" them. The following is the common style of ] warning : — "When will mothers and nurses loam that the tender body of the child cannot be hardened and made more robust by exposure to cold or any other hardship. Such ili-adyised proceedings undermine tho constitution and sap the vitality of the yoang being, and thus exercise precisely the opposite influence to what ia intended. We cannot too strongly insist that children are made less resistive to disease and weather, not stronger, by being subjected to unnecessary stresses. However well-intentioned, nothing is more cruel or foolish than to run counter to Nature by doing just the opposite to what any tender-hearted mother would be inclined to do if guided by her own. heart and commonsense" — and so on, and so on. The mother, metaphorically speaking, is "warned off the course" on the mere mention of the word "hardening," and from that time forward she is apt to turn a deaf ear to any suggestion, however sensible, if it countenances proceedings which she has seen dubbed foolish and cruel, and which in any case run counter to her own "mother instinct" to •coddle, shield, and protect her offspring. JUDICIOUS AND SYSTEMATIC HARDENING BENEFICIAL. In reality, as I shall 6how presently, the best way to "shield and protect" a baby is to judiciously and systematically harden it. The whole crux of the matter lies in the question whether the 6teps taken are truly judicious and eystematic or not. The woman who keeps a baby coddled all night long in a etuffy bedroom and proceeds to wheel it about the next morning, bare-kgged and barearmed, in a go-cart, with a view to hardening its system by extensive exposure of the slcin to cool air is certainly acting in a dangerous, foolish, and cruel way—doing something neither judicious nor systematic — something, indeed, which forcibly reminds one of the tendency of thoughtless mothers to unduly pet and then harshly slap their offspring — acting on. the mere whim or passing feeling, or want of feeling, of the moment. It is just such • mothers who, coddling and "hardening" (as they call it) by turns, have driven sensible people almost distracted by their vagaries and inconsistencies, and who, in tha last centnry, caused doctors and nurses to set their faces against anything in. the name of "hardening" as applied to children. In order to illustrate the point, I'shall give an extract from a generally sound and good book on "The Rearing of Healthy Children," written some ten years ago by Dr. Leroy Yale, of New lork, which conveys what may be called the orthodox medical advice of the Victorian era on the subject of hardening babies. Dr. Yale gave tho following question and answer under the heading : — THE HARDENING- THEORY. [Question.] "I should like to ask you a question about our 14-moatha-old baby daughter. She is doing very well in every way, and is considered by all who see her a strong and well-developed child. She is, however, subject to colds. My husband is a believer in the hardening theory, and thinks that it would be well for her to get a cold bath every day, summer and winter, even when she seems to have a running cold. I should like your opinion on that subject before cooler weather sets in. She enjoys the cold bath very, much at present." DR. YALE'S ANSWER. [Answer.] "To begin with, wo havo no opinion of the "hardening" theory ex'oept that, as generally interpreted, it is a great stupidity. We do not, of course, mean to advocate foolish coddling. The 'hardening" method in any shape should not be beg«n on a little child. As to the cold bathß, we note that you do not mention the kind of bath, but we presume you mean an immersion ' bath. "Cold" bath is used very vaguely in common conversation, but to a medical man it means a bath between 50deg. F. and 70deg. F. Now, a bath drawn from the cold tap in New York City, in the middle of a warm July day, is about 70deg. F. (if there has been a prolonged "hot spell" it will mark something higher). Ihis even gives a distinct chill when one enters it, which is soon lost to a strong adult; but the baby's surface area is much greater in proportion to its mass than the adult's, and it is in the same proportion more easily ohilled. Suppose baby weighed 201b, and his father 1601b; baby's mass to the father's is 1 to 8, his surface is 1 to 4, and he chills twice as fast, making no allowance for the relatively greater impressionability of the child's nervous system, which still further eiaggeiates the disparity. As the temperature of the bath" is lowered, the depression is proportionately greater. In fever the cold bjih, used with discretion, and by those who know its effects, is a valuable remedy, but it { is potent mischief if used stupidly. 'As to 'hardening,' once more we would say that we do not think well of cold baths, in tho usual sense, for an infant or a little child. If the immersions are only for a few seconds they may do no harm, but in our opinion, in cool weather at least, a better bath for the purpose is this: Stand the child in lukewarm water no more than ankle deep, and sponge it over with water of about 70deg. F. from a bowl at hand. Any necessary washing with lukewarm water and soap to cleanse soiled parts of tho person is to be previously done. By this method ail the advantages of the cold bath are gained, without its drawbacks." Dr. Yale represented the old school, and as I havo said, the above was writtoii about 10 years ago. I shall show next week that Dr. Holt, tho leading medical authority on children in New -York to-day, holds very different opinions. He approves and advocates the use of cold bathing for young children almost as strongly as Dr. Yale condemned it. Meanwhile, I may point oufc that in general one would not be inclined to advise the use of the cold bath for infants before th© age of 18 months or two years, and would stop it temporarily when a child had a "running cold." However, apart from excess of zeal in commencing cold bathing rather early in life for the average child and proposing to continue it during an active catarrh, the view of the father, which Dr. Yale so unhesitatingly condemns, is in reality quite right and sensible. A healthy two-year-old child who has been sensibly and suitably trained to take a cold bath every morning, far from finding the plunge or shower a depressing hardship, generally derives keen stimulation and exhilaration from it and the exorcise which should always follow. Never is the word "hardship" or the phrase "passion for unnecessary hardship" more absurdly used than in connection with the hamtuation of young warmblooded animals to the natural, pleasurable, and health-giving stimulation of the skin by fresh cool air and cold water. The value of the cold bath in early childhood is as rational and sound in theory as it is beneficial and satisfactory in actual practice. I shall enter into this matter more fully later on. The reader is referred, meantime, to page 71 of the Sooiety's book, ''Feeding and Care of Baby," which conveys shortly what api peftTß to mo to be the sensible couree in