OUR BABIES.

Star (Christchurch), Issue 16985, 8 March 1923, Page 10

OUR BABIES.

BY

HYGEIA.

Published under the auspices of the Royal New- Zealand Societj' - for the Health of Women and Children. “ 11 * a wiser to put up a fence at the top of a precipice than to maintain an ambulance at the bottom." THREE QUESTIONS. The following questions were submitted by one of our correspondents a tew months ago: TOB ACCO-SAIO KK . Question 1. - -Do you think it is suitable tor babies and young children to snhaie tobacco-smoke, as so many hare to do in their hemes P Answer.—Our correspondent scarce!v means to ask whether it is suitable Jor babies and young children “ to inhale tobacco-smoke,' because this must occur very rarely. Still, one has heard ol grown-up men actually puffing the smoke from their pipes into the faces of young children “ lor fun,” and even putting their pipes or cigarettes between children's lips, causing them to inhale the smoke, and almost choke over it. Such proceedings, besides being unhygienic, are very foolish, senseless, and harmful • but they must be infrequent. The question no doubt refers to the presence of the babies and young children in tin* room while their father, and maybe Ins friends, are sitting chatting and smoking. The. purer, fresher, and cleaner the air is the better it is for all babies and young children, as well as for all adults. 'I here can be no doubt that it must bo very damaging for a baby to breathe habitually air impregnated with tobacco-smoko and heated up and contaminated by the exhalations of the smokers. When otic goes into a heated compartment in. a train where the air is cloudy with tobacco-smoke one fairly gasps, and the whole atmosphere seems to lie polluted. If such an effect is produced on a hardened adult, bow much more must the •delicate, sensitive breathing organs of a vouu«child be affected. If once the matter were fairly presented to them, 1 am sure there are few fathers who would not gladly refrain from smoking in the living room until the children were safely in bed m a fresh, airy bedroom. As for the baby, he can always be made comfortable ni his cradle in another room, unless it happens to be hi s time for sitting up and noticing things, and then the father should be so interested in his chld’s development that he would not think of smoking. Again, let me repeat that cool, fresh, pure outside air is best for bab- 1 ies, children, and grown-ups alike. GOING BA R EFOOT. Question If.— Is it the safest thing to go barefooted? Answer.—This is a question often asked by anxious parents. Under all. ordinary circumstances a normal child would be decidedly safer and hardier it he went barefooted. The soles of the feet, soon become quite hard and leather-like, and it is only if a child knocks his toes or treads on something sharp which causes a wound that there is a risk of poisonous germs setting nt> trouble. Without- shoes in ordinary weather there is little danger of a child becoming devitalised through cold damp feet. Ihe little one dances along with a freer gait, and not only gets the stimulus m contact- with the earth but also the stimulus of cold. lie can walk through all the puddles .nd havu a hapoy time, thu., storing up power to resist the onj slaught of germs. Still, one has to consider the. “pros” and “cons,” and in a city, where garbage of all kinds may be. met with, or in the country near stables, there may be cases where it would be safer to have shoes. On a clean sea-beach there should be no danger, and a child would gain enormously by going barefoot-. We must always bear in mind that for one case where a child gets harm from going barefooted there are hundreds who get colds, coughs, consumption. etc., front lack of the kind of vigour and hardiness derived from free exposure of the skin to wet and cold —especially exposure of the. feet. There one would say that children are much safer and hardier if they go barefooted than if they have their feet covered. TRAVELLING BACKWARDS IN PRAMS. Question Hl.—-Is it conducive to the well-being of sight and nervous system generally for babies to travel backwards in their prams?

Answer. -On practically all grounds it is better for infants to travel backwards in their prams. The mother or nurse always lias the child within view, and can see it ho gets into an uncomfortable or awkward position and remedy the defect without delay. At the same time the child can always look at a familiar face, and is not terrified hy the constant passing of strange faces and things. Manv a time one sees a little child with eyes upturned to the bright sky without any shade to temper the glare. This is. of course, verv harmful. Tn sunny weather the child should always he protected bv n canopv or pram-hood which, while providing free ventilation, is light coloured outside, and lined with BREAST FEED YOUR BABY, if you are able, but if you cannot Glaxo is the proved best alternative. 2100 Infant Welfare Centres in Great Britain use Glaxo, purchasing sufficient to feed over 50.000 babies daily. Glaxo contains no preservatives and requires no modifications. 3