OUR BABIES.

Star (Christchurch), Issue 17756, 28 January 1926, Page 10

OUR BABIES.

.By

HYGEIA.

Published under the auspices of the Royal New Zealand Society for the Health of Women and Children (Plunket Society). It is wiser to put. up a fence at the top of a precipice than to maintain an ambulance at the bottom.”

A MOTHER'S LETTER. The question has so often been asked, ‘‘What would Sir Truby King or Miss Pattrick do with your baby?” To-day my doctor called and asked the same question, so if you think the matter is worth considering I would really greatly value your opinion. I feel that 1 am taking up your time, as niv baby is an “exception,” and therefore, in thinking of her, you are not solving a problem which will apply to the majority, and thus save your time However, if you haven't time to spare, please don’t bother replying at all, for, as already stated, my baby must be one of a very small minority. Her trouble is she won't be fed—far less overfed.

Perhaps a short history will help. Before baby came I carried out all instructions in “Expectant Mother,” with the result that I had “steeled” myself up to endure far more than called upon when baby was born, although I was over thirty years and this my first baby. She weighed s|lb. The first few days she hardly opened her eyes—the second week she opened her mouth 1 As I was feeling well I persuaded my doctor to let me go home on the twelfth day, as baby by this time was crying almost continuously, and I was anxious to get our Plunket nurse to see her. Nurse called on the thirteenth day, and. much to my surprise, found I hadn't nearly sufficient milk. (In the. maternity home I wasn’t allowed liquids because I was supposed to have too much milk!) After that I tested, weighed and supplemented; but baby cried until feeding time and then slept, and had to be wakened, and cried practically all night, so nurse advised going to a Karitane Home, and this we did. Baby improved almost immediately ; but we stayed there for five weeks, as T was most anxious to go home able to breast-feed baby entirely. I left af - ter five weeks with just 2oz per day short of requirements. Unfortunately when I came home the supply decreased, and I had to again supplement. Baby always hated the bottle, and eventually refused to drink from the bottle altogether, just living on what I had for her—about 18oz. Baby was then putting on about 2oz a week, and was three months old. I thought of giving the bottle first, and also spoon’ feeding, but nurse didn’t approve, so I decided I would go to Karitane again. (All this time I weighed before ancl after every drink, so knew exactly how much baby was getting.) After fighting with her for two days in Karitane, the matron decided to give the bottle first, and this worked splendidly. I took a nurse home with me, thinking baby would benefit, but it meant I had to dismiss my domestic help, and once again the milk went down—it is now about 13oz. This, of course, meant a big bottle, and the fights nurse and baby had were dreadful. It tisually meant that nurse held her nose and poured it down. Our Plunket nurse advised the Karitane nurse to stop the ten o’clock drink, as the sleep would do more good than a fight. At six next morning she takes about 4oz greedily*, and then the battle begins again! Nurse was here for ten weeks. She left a fortnight ago, and it usually takes me one hour to feed baby. Bottle first (up to 3oz), then breast, and then cup and spoon. We try to get 7ioz down per drink, making 30oz <l3oz mother’s milk, 17oz humanised milk) for the day. Baby is now six months old.

Last week she put on 7oz, so I reduced the humanised milk, and this week she put on 4oz. Baby now weighs 141 b 3oz. She is very healthy, sleeps well, kicks well, and is outside from 8 a.m. until 6 p.m.. except, of course, at feeding times. She is never rocked and never nursed, and she prefers her “kicker” in the afternoon playtime. She is a perfectly happy, healthy child, but doesn’t want food! Laziness really, 1 think, as she must get, prune juice every day, although she isn’t at all constipated just lazy.

Last week (the first week I had baby to myself) I sang, etc, etc., and persuaded her to take all her meals with out a fight, but it was- a tiresome business. Also she would hold the milk in her mouth, and then* let it dribble out, also shut her jaws so that the spoon had to be forced in. /with the result that nearly all the milk was lost. This seemed to me 1 6 be sheer naughtiness, and, after thinking seriously, I decided to smack her. She really seems to understand, as she does not dribble the milk out and does not shut her jaws, but occasionally still holds the milk in her mouth, although she swallows it eventually. However, I have not succeeded in getting her to take more than from two and a half ounces to three ounces from the bottle, and it takes her eighteen minutes to drink that quantity. What concerns me . is, should T continue "smacking"? You see. T must have obedience, and the little cries and pitiful mouth that she puts on alter one of these little smacks cannot do her as much harm as having the milk choked down her throat (and sometimes vomited again). What do you think? T have read and reread "Feeding and Care” for information on this point, and the only help in this connection is: “Any article of diet which is habitually refused, give first.” We are carrying that out by giving bottle first. And second: “Never force food upon a child; withdraw the food.” Of course, both these, remarks are applied to second-vear children, I. think. J am afraid T have written at great length; but you have all particulars. Baby is perfectly healthy, plump. Doctor to-day said she was a splendid specimen. She sleeps in a room by herself —fireplace in, windows and door open ; feed regularly; in fact, just does exactly as it is done in your Karitane Homes, but takes an hour to feed with a five ounce bottle and two and a half ounces from me (approximately). She drinks fairly willing from me. I have resorted to singing and smacking, and both so far seem somewhat effective; the last three meals have been over in fifty minutes. What method would you suggest or has succeeded in -other similar cases? Now. regarding breast, stimulation and massage: T have done this twice a da}* ever since baby was seventeen days old (also, of course, express after every drink). Do you think it advisable to stop for. say. a week, and then start again, or do you advise continuing right on for the next three or four months? Unfortunately I cannot test weight - -lv-'now as I used to, but I hope

to borrow our grocer's scales (as suggested by you) at -the end of next weekSorry I have rambled on so much. There are only two questions really: (1) How to feed baby? and (2) How to bring up my milk? As already stated, if you are too busy, then do not think of replying to this, as my baby is not sick. But oh! patience and perseverance are not easily acquired, are they? ANSWER TO LETTER. I intended to answer your letter soon after it arrived, but it was quite impossible to find time to do so. Further, it was quite evident that you were using almost every means that could be suggested for dealing with the exceptional difficulties with which you were confronted. Of course, it is always extremely difficult for anyone not able to see mother and child to arrive at any satisfactory conclusion as to the cause of the feeding difficulties experienced, but the following consideration may possibly be helpful. WHAT IS THE COMMONEST CAUSE OF WAYWARDNESS? The commonest cause of waywardness and indolence such as you describe is the fact of the baby coming to realise that it is all in all to the mother, and that if it cannot get its own way with her, it can at least obtain a great amount of attention and sympathy, though the mother may not realise that her anxiety and sympathy are manifested in any way. Jn this connection I cannot do better than draw r your attention to the remarks in “Feeding and Care of Baby” under the heading “Forming a Character,” on pages 149150 —especially the concluding remarks of Dr and Mrs Fitz. A forcible and highly capable doctor’s wife, who had only one child, to whom she was naturally extremely devoted, gave me,, over twenty years ago. a very interesting and convincing account of the difficulties she had met with in rearing an only child. She said: “Do what I could I came to realise that it was impossible for my husband and myself to prevent our child realising that she .was all in all to us, and though .we tried to be firm and sensible, I know that it would have been better for her had she not been so much the centre of our universe.” AN ILLUSTRATION. You assume that the difficulties you have met with are rare, and indeed very exceptional. In degree that is so, but to a lesser extent such difficulties are not uncommon, and we have had cases of resistance to the taking of food occasioned by the chiltl having insensibly drifted into the habit of resistiveness far transcending your own experiences. Thus we had to deal with a case at the Karitane Hospital in London, in which the mother had found it impossible to get her baby to take food except in a state of unconsciousness, so feeding was conducted month after month up to ten months of age. just a.s one would feed an unconscious fever patient.

The mother proved utterlv unable to cope with the situation, and it took our nurses about ten days to get the child to take its food when awake and at. regular times and in proper quanltjes. In any case this could not have been brought about except in the absence of the mother.

Dr Brennemann, a leading authority in America, has written very, conclusively on this point, saying that in his experience the best plan is to remove the child to a special institution (such f • °u r t _ Karitane Hospitals), where kindly but firm disciplinary attention can be given by well-trained nurses, whose emotions are not specially centred in the particular baby. This certainly affords the surest and quickest way to bring about, necessary regular feeding habits and to overcome dawdling over meals. Our experience has been quite similar in New Zealand and at Home.

The best substitute for a short course of training in an institution is to place the child for a few weeks under the charge of some relation or friend who has had experience in the rearing of her own children, and who is willing to carry out the necessary instructions. Of course, this does not mean that the temporary foster-mother is by nature necessarily firmer or more capable than the mother. The explanation of her success is the fact that her emotions are not deeply involved, and the child soon comes to realise more or less unconsciously that it has fallen into the hands of “ she who must be obeyed.” But after all, you have succeeded, not failed, so far a.s weight and growth are concerned—only it has evidently cost you a great deal of worrv and distress, especially the smacking and your attempts to appear firm and relentless. The interesting point is that a firm, well-trained nurse would succeed without, the smacking, though you were quite right to resort to this slight disciplinary measure.

The injunction never .to force food on a child would not apply j n a case of this kind. You were quite right to give the bottle first, and the same applies to various other measures you refer to with a view to maintaining and increasing your supp!v of breast milk.

\ou ask whether you should continue breast-feeding; but this question will have answered itself, seeing that your baby will now have come to the natural weaning time. Of course weaning is always apt to be a difficult and trying time for the child, and this may be specially so in your case. Other things being equal, it ■would hi well to delay weaning until the hot summer weather is over.

If an\' great difficulty-is; experienced in inducing your baby’ to take a sufficiency of prepared food, and to take it in a reasonable time, I should recommend you to apply for admission of the baby to a Karitane Hospital for a few weeks. We have a considerable number of such cases and the result is always satisfactory ’