to be totally sick of HV telling me i HAVE to do things

[lola88]

seriously this woman is driving me mad she spends all her time telling me i HAVE to do this and i'm NOT ALLOWED to do that.

So far i'm not allowed to put ds in his own room til 6 months not allowed to wean him before 17 weeks and should not being doin til 6 months anyway, i'm not allowed to leave him on changing table, i'm not allowed to put him in a baby walker.

I have to chuck away all my bottles and sterilisor because he had thrush, I have to stay with him while he sleeps, i have to get 4 stairs gates (when i only need 2 really) i have to get a fire guard.

I did say to her my understanding is these are guidelines not rules or laws she said guidelines are there to be followed! She is so pushy feel like telling her i'll do what i like and to bugger off! I do follow most of the guidelines but object to some woman telling me what i can and can't do with my own child!

My mother had a lovely turn of phrase that I think would be appropriate for this scenario.

"You know, that's a very unfortunate manner of speaking you have there.", said in a slow and slightly pitying tone of voice.

Should she have the brass neck to ask what you mean (and she'll be both defensive and on the back foot at this point) you can then state that since her shoulds and shouldn'ts are putting your back up, you wonder if the rest of her client base feel the same and if it reduces the effectiveness of her work.

Or maybe that would be too evil?

Regardless of the 6 month guideline and alterations therein, the minimum age has been 17 weeks since at least dd1 was young and she's 14 now. The OP seems to have a problem with that.

wannaBe you are the nicest person on mn i think :) thank you

Northernlurker no i have a problem with being told i'm not allowed to because actually i am allowed to if i choose to i'm not weaning before 17 weeks because i believe waiting is best but if i wanted to i could and would.ee

Why arn't you telling the HV that, then?

Correct her when she uses the word 'allowed'.

I can see the OP's point. Anyone that spoke to me like that wouldn't be particularly welcome. But the solution, as other posters have pointed out, is simple - get rid of her.

My health visitor upset me, I'm usually very placid and easy going, and after that I refused to see her and get my baby weighed! I didn't attend developmental checks either! I got the practice nurse to do any immunisations... I considered her as a waste of my time! If I was worried or needed help or advice I sought it elsewhere!

I will be she has only been twice had a lovely one before that but she left :(

The first time i just let it go over my head but she's really annoyed me now she speaks to people like they are idiots other mums at toddlers have mentioned it too we live in a village so there are 2 HV this do the area i think.

I'm not good at being told I'm "not allowed" to do things either. However, what I would do in this case, if you are prepared to continue seeing her, is to moderate what she says in front of her. A lot of her advice is very sensible but like everything, it's not what someone says, it's how they say it that makes all the difference. So I'd say something along the lines of "Thanks for pointing out the guidelines about weaning, baby walkers, sleeping alone etc., I can take them into account when making decisions about my baby".

but it's very easy to feel judged even if you're not actually doing anything wrong per se.

We all do actually want to do what is right for our babies, and it can feel quite undermining when people use emotive language to say that you "have to" do and are "not allowed to" etc.

And while things like weaning are in the more immediate future, things like stairgates really are not - at least not for a few months (given the op's baby isn't actually seventeen weeks yet).

It's hard enough being a new parent as it is without being bombarded with a list of do's and don'ts which should cover the next year or so within a single visit...

wannabe there may be more recent advice you know about in Scotland, but the current Scottish 'Ready Steady Baby' book talks about weaning at 6 months - it has a small section on "weaning early" after four months too - doesn't sound like a policy change to me?

Entropygirl I agree 100%.

My DD was breastfed exclusively for 5.5 months (I'd have held out for 6 months but she weaned herself by nicking DH's tortellinis) and when she hit the 4 month growth spurt I was feeding her pretty much every hour. Exhausting. My sis and mum both harped on about weaning her, as my nephew had been weaned at 4 months. I ignored them and just fed her a lot.

Result now is that nephew (15 months) only eats bland food, is scared of texture, only wants chips or yoghurt. DD (12 months) scoffs everything we do. I really do believe it's because she was ready for food, that it wasn't forced into her and given a negative connotation.

Weaning doesn't equal sleeping through the night. DD didn't get any better at sleeping after weaning, in fact she got a bit worse because she suffers from trapped wind and different foods (beans, some fruit etc) can make it worse.

If baby is hungry, feed the baby! Why buy chemical crap just so you can stick to your 4 hour routine?

There have been some studies in recent years indicating that leaving weaning until 6 months could leave a child more likely to experience allergies. I know I was torn when it came to making choices for DS.

When I investigated further, the studies that advised weaning at 4 months were funded by baby food companies.

I'm no scientist, so would have difficulty reading and truly understanding the different papers, but I'm always a bit suspicious when research is funded by a company that is likely to do well due to a certain outcome.

wannabe

Looking at the numbers for the UK, 1857 people died last year on the roads, and 300 babies died of SIDS. Given that babies under 2 make up only a small part of the population and that in fact it is mostly teenage males that die in traffic accidents it is actually far more likely that a baby under 2 will die from SIDS than in a car accident.

That may or may not be the reason that people bang on about the dangers of SIDS more than the dangers of cars.

hmmm looking in more detail I think an under 2 is about 30-50 times more likely to die from SIDS than from a road traffic accident. (It helps that they don't cycle much).

I think the key is in the delivery of the advice.

Advice given as suggestions and quoting of facts and statistics is fine. So that the mother can make an informed choice.

When I was pregnant with DC3, my midwife was forever telling me I wasn't 'allowed' to do this or that, or that I 'had' to do things, and in the end I made a complaint about her to the Head of Midwifery, who totally agreed with me that healthcare professionals are there to advise but not to dictate to people or force them into things.

So whilst I think your HV's advice sounds good and well-meaning, her bedside manner probably needs some working on and I can see how it got your back up, so YANBU

You don't have a fire. So when HV says "you must get a fireguard"....why don't you just say "I don't have a fire"?

When she says "you need four stair gates" why not say "well, as he can barely lift his own head, we don;t need to think about that yet"

When HV says "you mustn't leave DS on the changing table" why didnt you say "well, obviously not" and give her a face?

If you don't tackle her comments to you there is a strong possibility she thinks she HAS to spoon feed you this information.

I can see why the phrase 'you're not allowed' is annoying, but nothing the HV has said seems to bad to me, just current guidelines.

If you don't want to see her, don't. Just smile and ignore.

But it is misleading to say that as 300 babies died of SIDS last year the op is putting her's at risk. Because there are so many contributing factors when it comes to SIDS that if you break it down the risk categories are still tiny.

For one, not all of those 300 babies will have been under six months old, so that takes out a part of your number right there.

Of those between the 0-6 month number, not all will have been sleeping in own room - some will have been sleeping in with parents, some will have been co-sleeping (something which is also not advised but which on mn you are apparently not allowed to say, double standards much? ).

Some will have parents who smoke - a fact which increases the risks of sids by an astronomical amount).

Some will not be sleeping on their backs

And then you are left with those who are just not sleeping in with parents. What proportion is that?

I totally believe the OP. The HV I had with DC 2 told me "We dont allow weaning before 16 weeks (as it was then)" And that it was illegal to not have my DD vaccinated which in our case was dangerous as she reacts so badly to them that the doctor said that she shouldnt have any childhood injections.

some HVs are just fecking useless, and sadly I didnt know that I didnt have to see her, so I put up with it for 5 years!

I don't see why everyone keeps going on at the OP about ignoring the HV's advice - she has already said she is going to see her doctor at 17 weeks to assess and that she can't feed her baby the gimmicky formula.

Odd thread. The HV gave you some sound sensible advice (ie doing her job) and you come across all sulky and Kevin the teenager-ish because you don't like taking advice. No wonder she's treating you like an idiot. YABU

wannabe oh I am not advocating anything regarding SIDS advice...I just wanted to stamp out the myth that your baby is more likely to die in a car crash.

We should care about the bigger risks...and SIDS is a bigger risk than car crashes...to down play it is wrong.

FFS Try have you actually read the OPs posts?

She said that it isnt the advice she has a problem with but being told that she is not ALLOWED to do certain things. As i said above, i had a HV like this years ago and she was extremely bossy and snotty and got right up my nose! I wouldnt have weaned before 16 weeks but I resented being told that I was and wasnt "allowed" to do certain things.

does the SIDS/Car crash analogy even work though? Every baby goes to sleep at night (or so they should ) but not every baby has a parent who owns a car, so therefore may actually NEVER go in a car.