Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. A phone that grows with your child.

Meet the Other Phone.
A phone that grows with your child.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
Chat

Join the discussion and chat with other Mumsnetters about everyday life, relationships and parenting.

Original poster

Is it safe to have a child every year?

145 replies

faithfulbird20 · 14/11/2021 21:06

I know sue Radford has and she looks healthy. But is it safe? Just working it out sometimes she's been 2 months post Partum, sometimes 6...but shes just about had one every year. I was always told to wait 18 months before trying again but I waited till my daughter was nearly 3...

OP posts:
Ricetwisty · 14/11/2021 21:07

I don't know, but makes me feel a bit sick really.

Original poster
faithfulbird20 · 15/11/2021 13:49

Bumping thread for more replies

OP posts:
Original poster
faithfulbird20 · 15/11/2021 13:50

@Ricetwisty I know what you mean but it's their choice I guess.

OP posts:

Interested in this thread?

Then you might like threads about this subject:

Families
WarrickDavisAsPlates · 15/11/2021 13:56

I'm sure I saw in one of the Radford TV shows that she was told to stop having children a long time ago because of the damage it was doing to her body and one of her children was stillborn so I'm not sure she's a good example of things being fine.

I was told by my midwives to try and wait 18 months to give my body time to recover.

So yes, I'd imagine it is very dangerous to have multiple children in quick succession, remember that pregnancy and childbirth are far from risk free and women do still die and suffer severe injuries during pregnancy and childbirth.

WorraLiberty · 15/11/2021 13:59

Google answered this for me.

Mothers should wait at least a year between giving birth and getting pregnant again to reduce health risks to mother and baby, a new study says. But researchers say they need not wait as long as the 18 months recommended in the current World Health Organization guidelines.

claymodels · 15/11/2021 14:01

Physically or mentally?

Mentally she is absolutely not ok, I'm not sure she ever had been Sad

Djifunrsn · 15/11/2021 14:03

I guess her body is suited to it and copes with it. I'd be six feet under if I'd done that!

Cocovivid · 15/11/2021 14:04

I don't know but after 4 in 7 years my body is completely fooked.
I don't know how Sue is still standing, genuinely. The toll of pregnancy on the body is immense.

MoreAloneTime · 15/11/2021 14:06

I'm guessing you can more often than not get away with it with modern healthcare but it's not ideal for mum or babies

SummerOrAutumn · 15/11/2021 14:06

I know it was a long time ago, way before birth control, but Jane Austen lost two of her sisters in law to early deaths due to constantly giving birth annually. Presumably heart failure.

AllTheUsernamesAreAlreadyTaken · 15/11/2021 14:07

I’m not convinced Sue Redford has that much say over it to be honest.

Notashandyta · 15/11/2021 14:10

We had three under three and it did take its toll, wouldn't recommend. Lovely as it is now they're a bit older

Original poster
faithfulbird20 · 15/11/2021 14:13

@Notashandyta what are their ages? Like what's their age gaps?

A couple who are friends of my husband are having 4 in 4 years and I was like wow how do they manage? The wife looked fine too.

OP posts:
nancy75 · 15/11/2021 14:14

My dad is one of 14 (no twins.)
2 were in the same school year, at some points they had a child in every year at the school. My Nan was pretty much pregnant from the mid 50s through to the early 70s. She lived to be 82, which I find surprising considering what her body must have gone through.

Justanotherquestioner · 15/11/2021 14:15

There's 12 months between my boys. While it's ok now, I don't think it did either me or the boys any good

Kanaloa · 15/11/2021 14:16

I think you could have a baby after a year but I wouldn’t fancy having one EVERY year like some of these families with 20 kids or something! I have small age gaps (11,10,8,6) but I wouldn’t continue like that. I don’t think it’s good for the body. Also, surely it’s only really doable if you have easy/vaginal births? Maybe not but I’ve had two c-sections now and wouldn’t be lining up for another!

Kanaloa · 15/11/2021 14:17

@nancy75

My dad is one of 14 (no twins.) 2 were in the same school year, at some points they had a child in every year at the school. My Nan was pretty much pregnant from the mid 50s through to the early 70s. She lived to be 82, which I find surprising considering what her body must have gone through.
Gosh that must have been hard. I’m hard pressed keeping on top of washings etc for 4, I imagine with 14 there’s a point where you just feel like giving up!
Notashandyta · 15/11/2021 14:20

Their ages now are 7, 6 and 4 and a half

14 months then 18 months!

muddyford · 15/11/2021 14:22

FWIW, the Kennel Club won't register more than one litter from the same bitch in the same calendar year. This is to protect the welfare of the mother and the puppies. So if a dog has to wait twelve months, ideally, then I would think eighteen months to two years would be better for a human! It's the drain on calcium and iron resources that would concern me.

Ozanj · 15/11/2021 14:27

Breastfeeding is a natural delimiter of pregnancy so I do think conceiving 6-12 months after the first is in the realms of biologically ideal for a healthy woman. The reason why it’s considered risky now is that there are a lot of women out there, like me, who are having babies when nature probably wants them to remain either infertile or die in childbirth. For example one of my great grans died due to a prolonged back to back labour. That’s not something, thankfully, you can die of any more but if you do have it you are counselled to wait 12 months at least to recover. I come from a long line of women who died of pph. Thankfully doctors intervenened during mine and my mum’s.

Heruka · 15/11/2021 14:28

When I worked with young mums it was a research programme and one of the aims was to try to avoid subsequent babies being born within 2 years of the first. I forget what the evidence is but this was suggested as optimum for both mums and babies. Obviously people can choose to do what they like and shorter gaps work out, but it’s not a surprise if sooner than this is harder on womens bodies and impacts parent’s availability to their babies.

ittakes2 · 15/11/2021 14:30

My mum was very fertile - and each time she feel pregnant within 3 months of giving birth the subsequent child was born premature. She ended up going on the pill for health reasons which was a real issue for her because being catholic it was considered a sin and should could not take communion anymore.

TheCheesyBakedBean · 15/11/2021 14:30

I have a friend who's parents wanted to be a super family, baby a year every year, on the 5th child the woman had complications, not sure exactly, in a wheelchair for life and can have no more babies. Same thing happened to a friend of mine after 3 in 4 years. Just didn't give their bodies time to recover, and have lifelong health issues as a result

EnidFrighten · 15/11/2021 14:30

Having a baby drains your body of nutrients and it takes time to build them back up, 18 months is recommended. Baby after baby after baby cannot be good for you!