You make the whole world smile...

Back in the later months of my pregnancy with Connah, my midwife mentioned something to me about a Dr Sprott mattress cover. I obediently wrote down the name in the back of my pregnancy book, promising to look into it. (Although, I was most likely just thinking about baby names and pixie dust...)
Then she mentioned that it could reduce the risk of cot death.

Cot death.

There is not much that will strike icy fear into the heart of a happily pregnant person dreaming about baby names and pixie dust, but SIDS is made up entirely of icy fear.

I brought the cover, put it on the bassinet mattress, and had a baby.

Now I was a mother, and while before Connah was born the thought of SIDS struck me with icy fear, after he was born, the thought made me physically sick.

My fear quickly turned into an obsessive need for information, so I researched, and what did I find?:

A 100% successful crib death prevention campaign has been going on in New Zealand for the past 11 years. During this time, there has not been a single SIDS death reported among the over 100,000 New Zealand babies who have been using this method.

And just what is this magical method? Wrapping the mattress your baby sleeps on in a specially formulated polyethylene cover - a Dr Sprott mattress cover.

I won't get into the specifics of what causes cot death, and how this cover prevents it, because that will take far too long. Google it. Here is a good place to start:

http://www.cotlife2000.co.nz/

This "theory" has been repeatedly challenged over the past 11 years, but no one has been able to discredit any part of it.
It's very compelling and it makes complete sense. It logically explains every factor already known about cot death.

So why isn’t this profound and critically important information making the headlines of major newspapers? Why aren’t cot death researchers and the authorities advising parents to wrap their babies’ mattresses? Why are the manufacturers still adding fire retardants and other chemicals to mattresses?

One possible reason is that mattress manufacturers are required to use fire retardants through government regulations. Admitting that these chemicals are causing deaths would mean admitting to major liability. Also, SIDS charities, and fundraising for a cure for cot death, has been a significant source of funding for medical researchers. Unfortunately, the ongoing and expensive research (which only ever seems to come up with more “risk factors”) has pushed aside the simple and inexpensive solution of mattress-wrapping; a solution that actually works.


The reality of waking up to find your previously happy, healthy baby dead, is an especially brutal little corner of Hell that my mind has trouble fathoming.

I once had a dream that Connah drowned, I was taken to identify his body, which I did, and then everybody filed out of the room to let me say goodbye to him.
And I stood there, waiting.
I knew he was dead, and still I waited. I waited until he sat up on that cold metal table, and I took his hand and led him home.

My brain refused to accept that he was gone forever, even in a dream, so I can only dimly comprehend the bewildering agony that parents who lose their children are forced to endure.

Do your own research. Come to your own conclusions. But while you're doing that, for the chance of saving yourself that agony, buy a $20 piece of plastic, and follow the instructions.



xox

Violent Tendencies...

To Spank or not to spank?

Most people have a pretty good idea of whether or not they plan to use physical means to discipline their children before they are born.

I, of course, had to do much research on the matter, and found that generally people fall into one of two groups. And those groups don't like each other much.

These are the war cries of the two different groups:

# 1: If you don't spank your child, it means you don't love them enough to discipline them.
We are mammals. If we look at any other mammal, we see them bite and swipe at their young, not to cause them unnecessary pain, but to teach them. Immediate reaction to solve unwanted behavior. ( - Go spanking! It solves all problems, possibly even world hunger - Yay!)


# 2: Hitting is completely unnecessary, and emotionally destructive - It should not be included in discipline.
We are human, and have managed to master many complicated skills and evolved thought processes during our time on earth. We are able to rise above our primitive beginnings and provide a more complete corrective method. ( - Hitting is barbaric. Don't do it or you'll turn back into a monkey!)

So, after taking in both very convincing arguments, realizing that I don't really fit in either category, and forming my own idea's and theories on the matter, I decided that I would not be using physical discipline on my children.

I am not disputing the fact that physical discipline works. Of course it works! You are threatening a small person with (mild) physical violence. That's gotta be pretty scary when you're small - and fear is a great motivator...

But there are much better ways. And I'm not saying this in the flowery PC "We mustn't ever blow too hard in the general direction of a small child least we knock it from it's feet and cause it slight mental anguish, and possibly a brain hemorrhage." way.

I'm saying, that if you lead out of fear, the child rarely gets the opportunity to test it's own moral compass, instilling at a young age, that the only reason you don't lie / steal / kick your brother / spit on the cat, is because if you do, you will be punished.

There are so many adults out there that fully admit that the only reason they don't steal / kill ect, is because they fear the consequences if they get caught. (Call me crazy, but I kinda want my boys to not kill people because they have assessed all the relevant information, and decided that it is not the right thing to do.) These are usually the same adults that spout the famous "My parents used to hit me, and it didn't do me any harm." line.

I suppose it depends on how you define "harm."
(I mean, for a start these people seem to want to kill other humans.... that seems a bit harmful to me...)

Even when done in a corrective manner hitting can cause pain, resentment, anger, frustration, fear, embarrassment... the list goes on...And all this coming directly from a child's main source of nurturing and information - their parents.
What a devastating cocktail for developing self esteem and trust

.
It is a very personal choice, and one that I believe should remain with the parents. They are the only ones who know what their own capability's are, and therefore how they are best able to teach and correct their children.

By saying this, I am not advocating the statements that "It's the only way some kids learn." Or "I've tried everything else, and this is the only thing that works."

*Cough* Whatever. *Cough*

I am saying that it depends on your desired outcome. If what you are trying to do is stop behavior from happening, quickly and (relatively) effectively, without worrying too much about (possible) long term effects, this is a good way to go. And you may get a pretty well behaved child out of it, so if that is your desired outcome - congratulations, you win :)

My desired outcomes have always revolved more around the adults my boys will become, so I'm not prepared to have good kids at the (possible) risk of sacrificing self-aware adults.

What about danger? Surely if your child is about to run onto the road / touch the fire / drink the toilet cleaner, you need to give it a quick slap on the hand so that it knows immediately to stop what it's doing?...
Yeah, I can't really answer that. I've never had to. Is that the product of good preparation, or are my children just naturally not inclined to do those things? (Since I've put in a LOT of work in this department, I like to think it's good preparation, but in reality, it could be either :)

And while it's something I have chosen not to do, I really don't have a problem with other people using physical discipline on their children, as long as it is a conscious choice that they have made.

It's the hitting in anger that I disagree with. Any physical action combined with anger changes it's intended meaning. If a child does something wrong, and is corrected by spanking out of anger or frustration, I believe the lesson is lost. Maybe not always for the child, but for the parent. It ceases to be a moment where we can teach our child, and becomes all about punishing.

Disclaimer:

I realize that this is a pretty touchy subject for many people - most people in my life have chosen to physically discipline their children, so I know that they believe - just as emphatically that I do - that they are doing the right thing by their own children.
I don't need to prove to them that I am right, and they are wrong. I have no interest in trying to "convince" people that my way is best, but if I can make even one person think about why they are doing something that they previously hadn't really though about - even if it's only to think that I am completely full of crap, therefore re-confirming their opposing view - well, that just explodes with all sorts of awesome :)




xox