womensecr.com
  • What kind of baby do we have?the consequences of the traditional approach

    "The strength and intelligence of every nation evolves from the child's physical health," the words of the old doctor in his book I. Muller.

    What is today's baby, the future adult member of our society, the bearer and continuer of our cultural traditions?

    The indicator of the child's well-being is, first of all, the state of his physical health. Therefore, it is interesting to trace the history of an imaginary average baby, which is the result of a traditional approach.

    So, being a very tiny creature in the mother's belly, our hero, together with his mother, becomes an object of medical observation. This is expressed in the fact that a woman becomes a patient for several months, regularly visiting a doctor and taking tests. The very perception of her pregnancy as a phenomenon related to the field and competence of medicine, can not only project all the pathological experience accumulated by medical practice into it.

    The task of medicine is to identify and eliminate pathology. And the woman is looking for this pathology, even in the form of simple observation. And the famous principle of "seeking and finding" works virtually trouble-free.

    The patient's position gives rise to a complex of fears for herself and her future child. The absence of any cultural traditions and the inability to be "like everyone" leads to a kind of socio-psychological isolation and inferiority complex. This translates into deep feelings and darkens the joy of waiting for the birth of a baby. Fears and worries of the mother become the property of the child."Expressed stress caused by negative experiences, distress, leads to hormonal changes in the body of a woman that through the common blood network adversely affects the fetus and the development of its neuro-regulatory, adaptive systems," writes A. Zakharov.

    Thus, the mother and child in the period of intrauterine existence become objects of iatrogenic exposure. With increased suggestibility accompanying the period of pregnancy, it can seriously affect the overall health of the mother, and therefore the child.

    In addition, it should be noted a large number of drugs prescribed for a pregnant woman with various deviations from the established norms( which inevitably find and which often appear as a result of fears and fears), especially in cases when she is hospitalized. However, today no one can give a guarantee of safety for a child of a medical product, and the list of drugs unwanted during pregnancy is constantly growing.

    "A broad mass of women should be strongly warned of the extreme dangers of using any medication during pregnancy," concluded Ratner on the basis of his observations.

    It should be noted also the very frequent use of ultrasound diagnostics without extreme necessity. Despite the lack of sufficient scientific data, some medical authorities question the safety for the fetus of this procedure.

    To this can be added many unresolved problems related to the social status of women, the nature of her work, etc.

    The birth of a child takes place within the walls of the hospital with all its attributes and, as a rule, in conditions of separation of the family. The hospital atmosphere, the type of medical equipment, the treatment of a woman in labor with a powerless patient, its separation from the usual and comfortable psychological environment, the lack of emotional support and empathy - all this affects the state of the mother. The depression - quite common in a woman giving birth in hospital conditions - is transmitted to the child and causes a number of physiological consequences, including changing( as a rule, slowing or sometimes even completely stopping) the natural course of the generic process.

    Let's add here the load of fear and emotions accumulated during the time of bearing the baby.

    "Difficulties during labor, i.e., the inability to give birth on own strength due to the weakness of labor and the protracted course of labor, are reliably due to the presence of stress in women during pregnancy. .. Asphyxia of the child in childbirth, if she met, was primarily caused by stressmothers, "- deduces AI Zakharov from his observations.

    It is difficult for a modern doctor to imagine childbirth without medicines, even when it comes to uncomplicated births. Often, the unnecessary and unnecessary use of drugs during childbirth disrupts the hormonal balance of the mother and fetus, thus aggravating the generic process, and also adversely affecting the intensively going hormonal exchange between the mother and the child, on which the state of the immune system of the child largely depends upon birth. Frequent use of stimulation of the birth process with modern "on-line" obstetrics leads to intensified and irregular contractions of the uterus, which injure the child. Artificial breakthrough of the amniotic fluid, also a common practice, leads to more mechanical effects of the mother's tissues on the child's head, increasing the likelihood of brain injury.

    The unnatural position of a woman on her back, most commonly used in childbirth for convenience of obstetricians, disrupts placental circulation and increases the likelihood of hypoxia.

    Directly, the child's exit process is usually accompanied by a manual manual, with a normal ongoing birth, aimed at protecting the perineal tissue from ruptures( which is a very controversial issue), and also accelerating the child's release. As shown by A.Yu. Ratner, classical applied manuals often lead to birth injuries of newborns, affecting the spinal cord and not diagnosed immediately.

    The practice of early clamping and cutting of the umbilical cord( as a consequence of "flow" births) leads to a too sharp transition of the child's organism to a new mode of work and overload of internal organs, which affects the state of the endocrine system and ultimately leads to weakening of the functions of the body systems( a common consequenceThis, for example, is the physiological jaundice of newborns, considered to be the norm, in the opinion of some physicians, even in 75% of newborns).

    After birth, the child is separated for a time from the mother and subjected to certain procedures called obstetricians "treatment".Burying in the eyes a solution of lapis or sodium sulfacil( a procedure that has already been abandoned in many countries because of its unjustifiedness) leads to a temporary loss of visual contact with the world, irritates the mucous membrane of the eyes, often causing conjunctivitis. Flushing from the child of original grease - a natural protective cream that has exclusively skin-friendly properties - worsens the condition of its skin, causing drying and peeling of the skin( which is also considered the norm), increases heat transfer from the body( original grease possesses greater thermal resistance), andin combination with swaddling promotes the appearance of pressure sores and diaper rash.

    Excommunication of the child from the mother immediately after birth and doing with him various manipulations( instillation into the eyes, removal of amniotic fluid from the respiratory tract, flushing of the original grease, stretching to measure growth, weighing, swaddling) leads to an overload of his sensory systems,safety, causing the distress of the nervous system. Excommunication of the child from the mother also leads to the fact that he does not receive a significant part of the milk milk - the most valuable product of the maternal organism, which contains a large number of antibodies, which weakens the immune system. This also leads to a weakening of the psychoemotional bond between the mother and the child, and to a reduction in the duration of breastfeeding.

    Here is not a complete list of tests that fall to the lot of our hero to the beginning of his extrauterine life. However, after passing this stage, he falls into the power of a specific attitude towards him as a very weak and unfit for life in this aggressive world full of dangers in the form of viruses, microbes, cold, lack of milk from his mother, etc. And this is after allof what he suffered? After this, he is considered to be weak and imperfect? And they consider those same people who gave him this test for survival. They should be amazed at his strength and vitality. And they consider him weak. Or maybe they suspect about his incredible opportunities, but do not want to believe it? Perhaps because the tests are continuing. ..

    How the current culture of treating newborns and infants meets their real needs can be judged by the following interesting findings made by the Perinatal Research Group at the WHO European Office in the materials already mentioned. According to the first conclusion, only "10% of the methods used in modern midwifery have undergone an adequate scientific check".Can we in this case hope that the recommendations given concerning newborns and infants are "adequately tested" in a larger volume? According to another conclusion, modern medical science, when studying the process of baby's birth in a clinic, that is, medical birth, really deals with the "altered states" of the mother and the baby. And this means that the modern doctor has no idea about natural childbirth, how they would go without any interference in the natural and customary conditions for the mother( for example, at home), and also about what the baby born in this way is. And it is hardly possible to draw adequate scientific conclusions on the basis of studying the "changed" baby.

    What is this "science" of itself can be seen in one notable example. If you ask any poultry farmer what is best for breeding chickens-a hen or an incubator, he will laugh you. Despite all efforts, it is not possible for an egg in an incubator to artificially create the conditions that a chicken creates for it. The heat of a chicken is something different from the heat of an electric heater. In this there is something mysterious, mystical. But modern doctors took several decades to understand that the best environment for a newborn baby. .. his mother, the heat of which is somewhat different from the heat of the radiator. This could not be decided for a long time. Wrote a huge number of scientific papers. And finally, as the greatest achievement of the human mind, branches appeared in the maternity hospitals( initially called "experimental"), where the child was cautiously entrusted to the mother. And, about a miracle, he not only did not suffer from this, but, on the contrary, began to bear more tolerant tests that fell to his lot. And the trials are going on. ..

    One of the firm beliefs of doctors is that after the birth of a child the amount of colostrum present in the mother's breast is not enough to saturate it. As a result, from the very first days of extrauterine life, the baby is started to be supplemented with donor milk or special mixtures. In addition, he receives a solution of glucose. From this, the natural process of preparing the gastrointestinal tract to normal changes in the composition of the food is disrupted.

    Immediately after birth, the child's digestive system is so tender that it is adapted only for feeding with colostrum, and colostrum from the breast of its mother. Only after a few days, in accordance with the replacement of colostrum for milk, it is able to absorb it effectively. The composition of the mother's milk varies throughout the entire period of breastfeeding, preparing the body for taking firm and coarser food. Violation of this natural process leads to an overload of the digestive system, forcing it to adapt early to rough and unnatural food for it, which significantly weakens the body's internal reserves. This also applies to the practice of early administration( necessary, in the opinion of some doctors, almost from a month old age) to the diet of the fruit juice, irritating the mucous membrane of the gastrointestinal tract and causing dyspepsia.

    So early supplementation of the child from the very beginning of the period of breast feeding leads to a disbalance between the milk production of the mother's organism and the child's need, since the fattened child does not "request" breastfeeding for the necessary time. This leads to a reduction in the period of breastfeeding, which has for the child not only physiological, but also psychological consequences.

    Breastfeeding is recommended on a regimen, and the recommended regimens allow very small variations. This implies that, firstly, all children are the same in their normal physiology( individuality manifests only in pathology, as well as in the giving birth to a mother), and secondly, breast sucking is nothing more than a physiological act of saturation. However, serious studies show that sucking on the mother's breast is a complex psycho-emotional act for the child( and mother), a violation of the naturalness of which can lead to negative consequences for the physical health and psyche of the baby.

    The only reasonable explanation for strict mode of feeding is the conditions in the maternity hospital where the children are separated from their mothers, i.e., the convenience for medical personnel. And also the vestiges of the time when the child was in a nursery from the age of two months, and the mother returned to her workplace, having a real opportunity to come and feed him only after 3-4 hours. But does this have to do with the real needs of the child?

    The first months( 2-3, sometimes even 4 or more), parents often blindly follow the established practice of swaddling, which is taught to the newly mum in the maternity hospital. No doctor can intelligibly explain this forcible immobilization of a child. Parents also convey to each other prejudices such as "that was even."The only "reasonable" explanation for the tight swaddling of babies in the maternity hospital is the desire of the medical staff to assure themselves peace of mind, since a tightly rooted child usually sleeps longer and harder, which is "desirable" when he is away from the mother in the care of nurses.

    Swaddling deprives the baby's skin of fresh air, causing diaper rash. In conditions of swaddling, the mechanisms of thermoregulation do not develop, which delays the adaptation of the child during the period of newborn and in the future makes it more susceptible to diseases.

    But the most important thing in the practice of tight swaddling is the immobilization of the baby. Movement was the basic principle of its development from the time when it was just a fertilized egg. The egg contains a prototype of muscles - contractile proteins, which cause it to make movements. In the future, many rhythms of muscular contraction are formed, which continue to function even after birth. These rhythms are one of the most important conditions for a child's development. To deprive him of the opportunity to move is to deprive him of the opportunity to develop, physically and mentally.

    Until the baby stops swaddling, and he does not get the opportunity to occupy the most comfortable position, he spends most of the time on his back. This position is perhaps the most unphysiological of all possible( unless, of course, one suspends the child by the legs), but the only convenient one for swaddling. The constant presence on the back( with the exception of 5-6 minutes of recommended re-laying on the tummy) leads to a sluggishness of the internal organs and a weakening of the protective properties of the organism, as well as to an increased excitability of the nervous system.

    During the first year of life the child receives a series of preventive vaccinations designed to protect him from a number of diseases. For the acquired narrowly focused immunity, he has to pay dearly. First, vaccinations destroy natural immunity;secondly, the body is poisoned by a number of highly toxic substances contained in vaccines;thirdly, the danger of complications from vaccination is often much greater than from the diseases themselves, against which they are intended.(In the future, we will discuss the vaccination problem in more detail).

    Methods for treating sick children are most often based on the use of drugs. And the child's body is treated, conceivable as something separate from the mother. Children with the same ease, as well as adults, prescribed large doses of antibiotics and psychotropic drugs. It is obvious that such an approach, if it proves effective, then with serious and long-term consequences, expressed in the "healing" of the child, with a number of side effects of medicinal action that weaken the overall condition of the baby.

    Summing up the above, we can conclude that the traditional current approach to newborns and infants, characterized by ignoring the importance for them of psychoemotional factors at birth and their treatment, based on dogmas of more than half a century ago, caused by often more social causes than based on physiologicaland psychological data, does not take into account the real needs and opportunities of newborns and infants, leading to a number of negative consequences: mentalstress of the newborn and his mother, weakening of psychoemotional contact between the child and the mother and other family members, reducing the adaptive abilities of children, lagging behind them in their physical and mental development, weakening immunity and worsening the general state( both due to mental stresses and through impropertreatment), as well as to the disorientation of the science itself about these periods of life.

    And one more important conclusion we must make. Not infection, not cold and not other "harmfulness" of the surrounding world, but we, adults, are the main danger to the appearing creature. Academics and professors, for whom the baby is nothing more than a "biological object".Parents who listen to academics and professors and are afraid to trust their own feelings. We have learned to see in this being only a "specially organized animal" and have forgotten how to see the human soul in it. Maybe because they forgot how to see it in themselves? Maybe because we ourselves become "specially organized animals," not finding souls in the human body, dismembered and studied along and across it? How else to explain the violence to which a person exposes not only the surrounding nature, but also the love he produced, and, it is necessary, a beloved, dear and desired child?

    Is it amazing that growing up, our children are also starting to commit violence? Over nature, above themselves, already over their own children, and even over. .. parents. And someone, on the contrary, likes to be violated. Then life acquires certainty and clarity, without forcing to think about high matters.

    Our culture is violence. Nature must be taken, without expecting from her favors. To survive, you need to commit violence against others. But we want, that there were no wars, we want fresh air, we want pure human relations. We hope that our children will find something that we have not been able to achieve. We wish happiness to our children. And from the very first seconds we teach them. .. violence.

    We look forward to understanding with the children. How naive this is. After all, you need to understand them from the very beginning. But. .. "This solid thought, a well-established postulate that" this "does not feel anything," it "does not hear anything," it "sees nothing - about a newborn."

    No, it's about us. We do not feel anything, we do not hear anything and do not see anything. And as a result we have our "average" baby, the state of which is easy to judge from the above-described history. Is it any wonder at the horrific statistics of childhood morbidity, in which, moreover, an increasing place is occupied by nervous diseases. These statistics are usually put in reproach to medicine. However, one must realize that the current state of medicine is only a concentrated expression of our attitude to human life, its origins and meaning. The most important thing is to change the approach to the pregnant woman, the mother, the mother and the baby, based on humanistic values, to realize the fact of parenthood as a deep creative process.