sillywoman

We're just beginning the road to GCSE & A level (hopefully) stress here at silly-villa. All ye of greater experience - have you got any top tips for the coming 4 years?

Well - there is research, and the government/ FSIDs recommendations are based on that research. As you illustrate beautifully though Linzkg research is made up of individual cases and those for whom the recommendations don't work might be inclined to extrapolate the differences between some of the cases on which the research is based and their own situation in order to reassure themselves that the research doesn't apply to them (e.g. actually only a small number of the babies who died in the fsids research came from homes where one or more adults had been smoking in the previous 24hours rather than them all coming from 'smoke filled homes' and a similar number for those in homes where the primary carer had been drinking). Ultimately of course - as with all parenting - it's up to each individual family to do what suits them. Luckily we don't yet live in a society where the baby-police will come to your house to tick you off if you don't choose to follow the guidelines. They are research based though so don't deserve to be totally dismissed, and are there to give 'average british baby' the safest start in life. The fact that no one actually has 'the average British baby' is wonderfully illustrated by the many varied replied to the OP on this forum. edited to add: one of mine was a tummy sleeper too. Also my two eldest shared a room from the ages of about 6 months and 24 months. Then later their other brother went in with them too when he was about 5 months. They had a lovely time, never woke each other with their night crying (and they did still wake once or twice a night - one of them even more -at that age), even when ill. In fact they entertained each other in the mornings and meant we could sleep later. I took the view that generations of children have been sharing beds/ rooms/ pallets whatever for aeons, why on earth would I imagine anything untoward would happen? Also, we had another room, so if it hadn't worked we could have moved them. They all 3 shared for a long time (about 5 years) and my youngest two are sharing still.

Yes, I think my son would like that as a gift from an Aunt.

I say, "work hard, do your best & I'll see you at home time" - very dull. It never occurred to me to say "have fun". Hmmm am now questioning what this says about my attitude to school.

The problem with clothes or shoes is that if he's into what he wears, he'll want to buy it himself not have a well meanning adult chose it for him. If he's not that bothered, then it's not really a great gift. My boy's lovely Godmother bought him a fab 'cool' Tshirt for his 12th birthday last year, he was quite :-S about it as he just doesn't see clothes as any kind of present. It would be good to more more info about what your boy is into Ladymuck - could really help you then.

For those who are safety minded; the current recommendation from the Foundation for the Study into Infant Death is that keeping the baby in their own bed, but in your room for the first 6 months significantly reduces the risks of cot death. Ergo if you do it before 6 months then you'd be increasing the risk (exponentially according to age) - the research this is based on seems to suggest that there's little difference between those who used a baby monitor & the few who didn't. 6 months seems a long time to me - mine mostly went at about 4 months, when they could roll over & so couldn't sleep in their moses basket any more. It's a personal choice though. Agree with the whimper thing MrsMc mentions too.

Domitianus Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I was in the shop once when he refused > to refund a customer for some sort of faulty goods > - he insisted that the chap return it to the > manufacturer even though the customer quite > rightly pointed out that his contract was with the > shop. Oooh, that might have been me. Was it 12 years ago? I stood my ground though & threatened trading standards. He gave me the refund though he made his cowed looking lady assistant give it to me from her personal purse (!! what was that about?). Then he banned me from his shop forever. It hasn't really had a negative impact on my life, but I'm glad to see the nasty little man go finally.

Would echo the query about original locals -Sensibleman was HH born & bred, but went to school over here. In our road we're still considered by many to be relative newcomers as we've only been here 15 years! It's an absolutely smashing place to raise kids there's so much for them to do at any age. In fact we are the flipside of littleEDfamily. I'd love to move to have a bigger garden but my kids have such a great life here that they've made us promise not to move out of our road at all (even within ED) until they've left home! As everything they need is within an easy walk/bus or train journey I can see their point.

Hmmm, at 13 I'd need more info. My son & his friends are all this age and are all so different that it's hard to think of one gift that would 'fit all'. Is he into looking cool - so would clothes from a particular shop float his boat? Is he into gaming - if so what sort (Xbox, PS3 & so on) - is there a game he particularly wants? Is he a reader? Maybe music is his thing? If vouchers are out of the question then I'd say you need to know more before choosing a good gift.

Me & my boy (nearly 13) are currently enjoying the 2nd of 'The Knife of Never Letting Go' trilogy (?), by Patrick Ness. Good writing, interesting concept, no drugs/violence/boys troubles stuff. The other books he's loved are the Michelle Paver 'Wolf Brother' books. Really well written & very enjoyable. Don't know whether either of these would suit your son? HTH

Thankyou annaj. Your post has clarified both the appropriate terminology & it's importance very well.

. . . but in referring to the birth of the currently living baby it would surely be misleading and wrong to say that the baby was 'stillborn'? This implies a baby who is, and remains, dead. The baby was, as someone else has said - born 'flat'. *holds spinning head in hands from going round in circles*

EcoWill Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Iv'e seen him about alot recently, yes as always > at the side of cafe Nero. Have attempted to speak > to him as I'm Irish myself. So do you have to be Irish in order to attempt any conversation with someone you think may need some help? :)

Have been watching this series too. Mostly great - as Keef says - really lovely families. Heartwarming journeys of realisation for wealthy ones, and a bit of a hand up for the poor ones. As one wealthy dad said, he's had someone helping him, why shouldn't others, just as hardworking, have someone to help them? This weeks though was the first of the wealthy families I'd felt a bit odd about. The Mum - living in a new build in Milton Keynes - seemed so ignorant, making comments (echoed by her young son) about how the poor South London family had probably never seen cars or houses like theirs. I must confess that my South London pride was riled at that. Does she think we all live in tenements and travel by donkey?! Country folk eh (I can generalise wildly too you know)?

OK LTEC, now you've clarified I can say I completely agree with you. I was going to raise exactly your points of concern with linzkg on the breech thread, but It's been raised in the past on another thread and felt if that hadn't changed her completely inaccurate way of referencing her birth then, it probably wouldn't do any good to raise it again now. Also, you can see from the link, that she/he got very defensive when challenged on her inaccurate terminology. Her baby obviously wasn't stillborn and I do think it's wrong and misleading and possibly offensive that she continue to refer to it as such. However, you can lead a horse to water etc.etc.. However I do think that when discussing scary and emotional issues such as this it really is very important to be as accurate as possible, especially when on a public forum. As you said, as users we have a responsibility to consider the impact of our words on others and to try and 'get it right'.

DD1 was 18 months when DS1 was born. We bought a cotbed for her, then switched to a 'big girl bed' when she was about 3 and DS1 then had the cotbed. It all worked OK. They shared a bedroom from the time she was 22months until she was 5. She was a great sleeper, he was awful - but he never woke her up (only me!), and vice versa in the mornings. Often I'd come in to find them playing together in his cot once he was old enough to be of interest (about 9 months if I recall?) but he never called or cried for me in the mornings if he woke and she was there awake too - they just played. Now of course they're teenagers and hate each other with a passion. Ah, the good old days, sigh . . . .

Big MWAH! to Keef. :))

Come on LTEC, it's really not good forum etiquette to post such vague allusions to someone else's post that bothers you so greatly. Have the courage of your convictions and talk specifics. And be sure that there will always be someone out there who'll agree with you (as well as some who don't). Anyway, please be up front about which post has upset you as now we're all wondering if it's one of ours.

ryedalema Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > It will either be c. 15 toddlers if the > nursery kids aren't included, 35-40 kids if they > are. > > OMG ::o & any other 'completely horrified' emoticon. Please don't do it. Your eldest will be overwhelmed by too many kids & too much attention from the wrong people (you'll be busy elsewhere!) & it will all end in tears. Awful, awful, awful. You must be mad as a hatter to even consider it. Please stick to a smaller and more manageable party with her real friends as suggested by Fuschia & ginaG3 for your not yet 3 year old. That way you can both look back on it with pleasure. If you want to have a massive party, have an adult one for you - no 3 year old on the planet really wants a party with 35-40 kids. They just don't.

The Indie today says that a group of women were arguing with the Mother on the beach - they were saying the baby needed medical attention, she wanted to stay on the beach. One of them contacted the Police. Mum was on a day trip from Plumstead. She's 29 though, so you'd have thought old enough to have some common sense? Poor little baby. :(

Yes, good post Molly. Guilt about Caesarean is whole other thread as you yourself point out Saila. I myself haven't personally come across any scaremongering around having Caesareans, but it's probably out there . I would like to say though that when you say "we make out that a woman has 'failed' if they have a c-section", you may referring to your own experience, but not to mine or any other health care professional I've met. Again, I come back to Eleanor Roseveldt "No one can make you feel inferior without your consent". Ulitmately there's no right or wrong way to do this 'birth' business. Each woman has to make decisions based on her own individual circumstances and the best advice and research available at the time. For some the right way is elective CS, for others trial of labour with the possibility of an emergency (terrible misnomer) CS, for others an epidural based labour and still others an unmedicated labour. Each woman needs to examine the evidence she has to chose the option that feels right to her. I would only warn against relying too heavily on the viewpoint of someone committed to an Obstetric model of care as your sole method of decision making. Balance the view by reading widely and well to try and get a sense of the bigger picture. Scary stories are not of any use to a woman about to have a baby at all - steer clear of them if you can. And whilst Dad, if he's around, does have some say in this it is ultimately the decision of the woman herself. After all not everyone experiences the cosy "3 people go into that delivery room and 3 go out (baby, mum and dad)" scenario, and it would be naive to think so.

Saila Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > > as for woman give birth in bushes every day etc. I > can't help thinking that's a little niave. The > evil stepmother in fairy tales stem from mummys > dying in childbirth. It was a significant cause of > death before modern medicine spotted complications > such as placenta previa (sp) which my sister had > and wouldn't be around today had it not been for > scientific advances. > > Actually I think the main cause of maternal mortality pre 1940's was puerpal or 'childbed' fever. Not a complication of childbirth as such - an untreatable (no penicillin) infection of the womb. Not actually to do with the specifics of getting the baby out, rather to do with what happens after. There's a lot of fear about childbirth, hence the huge medicalisation of the childbirth system over the last 30-40 years. Most of the fear is completely unfounded and the small minority of truly tragic cases are repeated over and over, the stories told and retold increasing women's fear and anxiety. Comments like saila's one above play in to that fear absolutely. The system we have is great (though not perfect)at spotting most cases of 'at risk' pregnancies and for those cases often C sections can literally be lifesavers. However where the system fails us is that it shows no confidence at all in women's natural ability to give birth whether cephalic or breech presentation. Your body is - on the whole - designed to do this. And generally does it brilliantly if given the right circumstances. The Obstetric model tells us we need to be monitored, and drip fed, to have this drug to make this happen and that drug to make that happen, it erodes womens confidence and makes them fearful of the process thereby increasing the likelihood of needing to have interventions - a self fulfilling prophecy if you like. By listening to scaremongers and allowing ourselves to be led down the medicalised path without question we could easily end up emulating the Brazilian model and find ourselves with an 80-90% CS rate. We are slowly moving that way. Would you really say that 80% of Brazilian womens bodies are incapable of giving birth safely? Do we really think that 30% of British womens bodies are incapable of giving birth safely? The WHO tells us that any CS rate above 10-15% in a developed country is putting womens lives at risk. This is where scaremongering about any birth processes will lead us. As to whether I'd be up for it or not - personally, like other have said, it would depend on the position of the baby and the availability of an experienced midwife, but given those as a positive I'd say yes. For me the risk factors under those circumstances would be sufficiently low. I'm not a natural risk taker, but living & the very process of creating life is a gamble and there are no absolutes - the line is different for everyone I know, but for me that's where I think it would be.

Ah, gotcha.

"No one can make you feel inferior without your consent" Eleanor Roosevelt.

Charter does this too. Not at all weird. Actually seems quite sensible and plays to the strengths of a very mixed ability yeargroup - I assumed it was standard practice in a lot of state secondary schools now?