to feel sad that friend is happy to be separated from her newborn for first 3 nights

[Whoneedssleepanyway]

My friend is due to have DC2 in a few weeks and after a very bad labour resulting in some problems for her DS, she has booked into a private hospital for an elective CS.

I w her the other day and she said the hospital insist she stays in 3 nights and it is brilliant as they will take the baby to the nursery all night for her so she can sleep and will feed the baby for her as she doesn't intend to BF.

I didn't pass comment as this is up to her but I can't help feeling a bit sad that her baby won't be with its mum for the first 3 nights of its life but will be with some stranger, both my DDs slept with me (on my chest) for first 3 nights.

AIBU?

Shagmund puts it much better than I - this thread is all about the mother's needs, and not about the child. It's a very mumsnet stance - mother comes first - and very sad. A newborn has needs too, and although obviously sometimes it cannot be helped, should be with its mother for the first hours and days after birth as much as possible.

As baskingseals says too, a newborn baby should of course be prioritised over a fully grown woman. I'll get slated for saying this, but it's not as if she'll be exhausted after hours and hours of hard labour.

This thread is basically twelve pages of people getting defensive because they see blame where there is none, or judgment over decisions they made that they should be comfortable with.

For those of you that posted about your babies going into SCBU, clearly it is not the same at all - but it would be understandable if this touched a nerve and you felt sensitive about it. Your posts seek to shrug off blame when there hasn't been any assigned. You had no choices in your situation - you did what was best for your baby. It is clearly not the same as a woman choosing - pre-labour - to not have her baby with her for the first few nights.

For those of you that did choose to put your babies in the nursery in the evenings - that's your choice. I feel no martyrdom in wanting to keep my baby close to me at all times - why do you accuse people like me of that, based on your own decisions? Be comfortable with them - if you truly believe you are doing the right thing by your baby and yourself, what's the issue? The OP could have sparked an interesting debate but it hasn't - it has turned into an uncomfortable place of counter-judgments and name calling.

It's a decision I won't be making because I completely agree with Shagmundfreud and Everlong - we our mothers now, it is entirely about our newborns first and foremost, and I absolutely do not believe creating a separation does newborns any good. Further to that I believe as new mothers we are entirely hardwired to have our babies near us at all times. We are the only mammal to create such a separation with our babies and it is entirely for the adult's convenience. If separating yourself from your baby at night is so harmless, why does conventional wisdom suggest we ought to at least have our babies in our bedrooms with us? Why could you not have your baby in a pod by your bed? Why does it need to be taken away, in another room? I completely support the theory that, where possible, a baby should be in close proximity with its mother.

Why isn't there room for both opinions, for a debate that is not shrouded in defensiveness and sensitivity? The hypocrisy on this forum astounds me - in this very place, in AIBU, I have been ridiculed and laughed at for saying I intend to "wear" my baby all the time. This decision comes from my personal beliefs stated above - I believe a child that knows instinctively that its mother is close at hand all the time grows into a confident individual. In the same way you decided to separate yourself from your baby, because you believed it was the right thing to do. I am not mocking that decision, or ridiculing it. I am not saying your child will turn into an insecure mess because you separated yourself. I just have my beliefs, as you have yours and it goes against all my instincts to do what you would do - I don't agree with it in a situation where the mother is capable - she is there entirely for her newborn.

There is a culture on MN that what's good for the mother is good for the baby, that concepts like attachment parenting are silly or naive, that to say you believe yourself to be entirely secondary to your baby is to be a martyr. This is absolutely bonkers. All that attitude comes across as is that you are there for your baby until it infringes upon your needs. I don't agree with that - sometimes the baby's needs are different to and surpass those of the mother. Again - I would be happy to debate that in an intelligent way but I've no time for the defensiveness that manifests itself as scoffing at my choices because they seem to threaten yours in some way.

Eugenes, sod off yourself, dear.

Well said bettybat.

Surely the issue is that there is no real debate to be had. It's a non-issue. It's not exactly Bucharest Project conditions we're discussing. Is anyone really losing sleep over the life-chances of a baby about to be born in the Portland? I can think of a few demographic groups I'd have bigger concerns about tbh.

Must be nice up there on your high horse, of course people look at their own experiences and draw on them to try and educate the smug on how its different for everyone.

I wonder how many people on here saying the OP INBU have actually had a C Section. I had an EMCS and during the night in a postnatal ward there are not that many midwives. Post CS you aren't allowed to leave your bed for 24 hours (not that you could if you wanted to as for most people they can't feel their legs and the wound is agony for the first few hours not to mention being catheterised). It's not a fun experience having to call a midwife every time you need your baby handing to you to feed and then calling them back to put the baby down (no beautiful dreamy newborn sleeping peacefully on my chest - he screamed constantly all night and holding him caused me immense pain).

Frankly, at this stage a mother's needs ARE more important than the newborn, which cares not one jot about who is holding it as long as it is warm and fed.

Tango - it is different for everyone, but the basic principle apply to all: consider the emotional and physical aspects of the first few days after birth from the perspective of BOTH parties and don't ignore what the research tells us about normal newborn reflexes, instincts and physiology just because it doesn't fit with your argument.

Oh - and my experience of the first two nights with my new baby wasn't what I'd call 'optimal': no skin to skin, very little support, and I wasn't well following a forceps birth. My response is not a) to feel guilty or b) to bemoan the fact that I had to care for my baby around the clock with no help, but to ask why it was seen as acceptable for the midwives to send DH home and then ignore me and dd for 36 hours. That's what made me feel like shit - being ignored. The sleeplessness was tough but it would have been manageable if I had had a sense of being cared for.

And another point: we are the only mammals who routinely put a distance between ourselves and our newborns. We are the only mammals who also fail in large numbers to make breastfeeding work. Taking into account what we know about normal postnatal hormonal physiology and the importance of skin to skin contact and frequent, regular suckling - can you not see some connection between these things?

Sounds like a great idea to me! Three out of my four were in the nursery overnight, and only brought to me for bf. And during the night, baby was taken back to the nursery afterwards for changing, so I could snuggle back down and get some much needed rest. They all grew up to be pretty normal.

Of course, and I can empathise with you too as I was completely ignored. In fact I was the only woman out of 10 on my ward BFing, and everyone else's babies were taken, mine left with me to scream the ward down and keep everyone awake :(

I do understand why its important for mum and baby to be together BUT I also understand why mums need a break, especially if they have had a very rough birth, I wasn't asking them to take DD all night, but a couple if hours would have made a big difference to my attitude. Instead I spent 8 awful hours thinking 'why the hell did I have a baby?' and wishing I could fit her back inside me!

OP doesn't know exactly what her friend went through the first time but she has said it resulted in problems for her friends ds, maybe her friend just needs a bit more support this time.

Think some perspective is required here for some. The baby will be whisked/torn/ripped/snatched for a grand total of what, 7-8 hours maybe?

Im actually detecting a bit of an undertone from some that its not so much the baby being snatched in the night by an evil MW, but more being snatched by an evil MW with an even more evil bottle of FF.

And I still think using the example of having a baby sleep on your chest as a badge of good mummying is a load of gash. Yea, after my CS I couldnt even have a gnat fart on my body without being in awful pain, not to mention my point yesterday about it not being the safest co-sleeping position.

I had the same plan as your friend, but a nosy midwife kept bringing baby to me saying he "needed" to be with me. Frankly I thought he'd be fine in another room for a few hours and craved sleep.

I hope your friend's wishes are respected better than mine.

YABU as its none of your business. I would be hoiking my judgy pants up more at someone sleeping with a newborn on their chest for the 1st 3 days TBH but again it would be none of my business so I would never comment in RL.

My DS1 spent 5 days away from me in special care but it didn't affect our bonding at all, he couldn't even be fed as didn't wake up till day 5 properly.

I had an elective c-sec with DS2 but never had the option of him staying in a nursery so he was in his cot next to me in the hospital for the 2 nights I stayed in.

Should have said, I would have been happy to have had DS2 looked after by midwives if I had not been well enough after the section.

An elective c-section is worlds apart from a long traumatic labour followed by an EMCS. I've had both, the ELCS for DC2. I was pretty much wide awake, alert and high on endorphins having just had a baby after the ELCS. I was fully capable of looking after my newborn. Yes it is uncomfortable with the sitches and walking was near impossible in the first 24hours, but I could hobble to the cot and back and hold baby fine and I was fine to be up all night with her feeding.
I caught up on my sleep during the daytime, when DH there to look after baby.
With the EMCS I was shattered, although in hindsight I wouldn't have let them take the baby away to the nursery as BF failed and I should have held him more, at the time I was very grateful for the break. The long labour which preceded the EMCS included 4 nights of contractions and no sleep. I was not in a state to look after a newborn.

It is very much a possibility that the OPs friend will have a totally different experiece and capabilities following this birth than she experienced with her first.

Shag

"We are the only mammals who also fail in large numbers to make breast feeding work."

We are the only mammals that have a safe and convenient alternative to b.f.

That might also be relevant?

We're only talking about a few hours when the baby is most likely to be asleep anyway. It's the settling, not the feeding, that is so exhausting, especially for an inexperienced mother. Many have barely even held a newborn before.

But the settling for a newborn is usually achieved by just constant feeding. My dd just fed all night was unsettled off the breast this is normal. They are calibratingthe milk supply for the future.

I have read your later posts and still think YABU to think that it is the wrong way or that the child or parent will suffer for it.

My generation, most of us were taken to nurseries overnight for the first few nights in hospital. Most mothers appreciated the break. IMO, it is competative parenting that has made people think that having a break from their baby in order to get some rest makes you a bad parent.

'I was not seperated from my child, day or night, for the first month.'
'That's nothing, I have not been out in a year.'
'My child has never been left with a stranger and she is 4.'

Everyone parents better than someone else. But this competative attachment parenting is a new thing (not the attachment necessarily, the competition). In the past it was accepted that a bit of rest may help you be a better mother. Now the assumption is that you are only a great mother if you have devoted yourself entirely to baby and can show this by being sleep deprived.

Of course we all see other parents do things we would not and question them. I just think this is one of the smaller things to worry about, given how common it was until recently and how nobody was really that scarred by it.

I wouldn't choose it but it is totally up to her. I didn't see my son till 3 days after he was born-not through choice. He was ill in NICU and i was in HDU after massive blood loss-too ill to even wheel down to see him. It was horrific but thankfully he and I are very close and it didn't do us any hardm-didn't quite feel he was mine at first though! He also is very close to his twin even though they were seperated for a while also (Twin 1 was with me in HDU).

get your kit off lequeen

"We're the only mammals to wear clothes, and have Sky+, too...are we meant to all go buck naked, and cancel the Sky+ subscription, too, then"

The point is LeQueen that unlike mass cancelling the Sky+ subscription (which would probably result in a general lowering of average BMI across the population and increase in levels of healthy activity) mass failure to breastfeed does actually have health consequences for children at a population level, and for mothers too.

Oh - and nobody's arguing that women who've had c/s shouldn't receive really good nursing care and midwifery support after birth. But you can have these things and still have your baby with you for frequent contact.

"or that the child or parent will suffer for it"

Why is there this assumption that if you can't measure the impact of something then there IS no impact?

You, and others on this thread seem convinced that babies are not human at birth, in the sense that they simply need to have their physical needs met and that if this happens there are no other needs that need to be considered.

I'm sure you don't think this is true of older babies or children. So at what point to babies' emotional needs start to be important?

"But this competative attachment parenting is a new thing"

Oh bollocks to that. In evolutionary terms women handing their babies over to a stranger to be taken away and fed with cows milk, occupies the tiniest, tiniest sliver of the human time-line. It's the latter which is a 'fad'. Not the former.

"We're only talking about a few hours when the baby is most likely to be asleep anyway. It's the settling, not the feeding, that is so exhausting, especially for an inexperienced mother. Many have barely even held a newborn before."

Yes - so let's give her the baby when she's awash with oxytocin following the birth, and the body is hormonally primed to go through the changes necessary for lactation. Rather than sending her home with progesterone levels plummeting and a newborn she's had very little contact with because they've spent all night at the midwives' station in a cot shoved into the corner of room under fluorescent lighting. (that's what would happen to babies in the unit I used to work in, if the mother requested some rest - there was no nursery, no nursery nurses and if anyone was required to give the baby their first bottle feed, they'd snaffle any old support worker to sit in the corner by a computer and do it).