To be a bit (ok, a lot) judgey about this?

[midori1999]

Someone I know has posted on Facebook (yes, yes, I know!) that their 10 week old baby has just eaten half a jar of baby food. Apparently due to the baby's incessant hunger and although they are aware of the 6 month guideline for weaning, that's not suitable for their baby because he is just so hungry.

Same baby has also been pictured in a baby walker periodically over the last 4 weeks, propped up/squashed in with a blanket as obviously they are far too young to sit in it unaided.

The same family give their 2 year old coke in a bottle.

I know it's none of my business, but I can't help but feel these things are just a symptom of wanting their baby to be 'grown up'.

Oh, and the reason she (and a few other people) are on my Facebook is complicated. It's sort of 'political' and to do with my DH's work.

However, that said, she is a nice person, just one with very different ideas to me.

DS1 = 17 - lay on side

DS2 = 16 - lay on front

DS3 = 12 - lay on back.

They were all laid on their side, because you follow a pattern of what is normal for the first, you do for subsequent children. Or you spend your life overwrought and worrying you did something wrong first time round. Really they should bugger off with all their advice and let women do what comes naturally and what is best for their child. Be a lot less hoiking of the pants as well.

\o/ waves to Worra... I know you love that emoticon

Waves right back to Lying, I wondered where your Boden clad arse had gone

Meant to add...all 3 of mine loved their baby walkers too.

Jumping - 1200 babies used to die of cot death every year in this country. In 1992 the advice changed to "Back to Sleep" and that figure dropped to 300 a year. So really, would it have been better to not give any (evidence based) advice on sleeping position and have 18000 dead babies?

Does nice make up for stupid?

Sleeping position isn't the only factor with cot death.

Smoking was allegedly one factor, perhaps it coincides with the fact that smoking is now much reduced? co-sleeping was another factor, as was over heating, genetics is also another known factor, gender, and amazingly hearing disorders were common in SIDS babies.

Jumping, I take it you drank and smoked during your pregnancies too and refused any silly nonsense about having the baby scans. After all, I'm sure the advice will change again.

Sleeping position is the major factor in reducing cot death. Other factors such as place, smoking, breastfeeding, room temperature, birth weight and prematurity also play a role.

When my DS was born advice was back to sleep. If by the time I have another baby evidence points to sleeping in a sitting position further reducing the risk then I would put that baby to sleep sitting up! How bizarre and stubborn to say "well my last baby survived, why on earth would I listen to new evidence".

Funny you should mention drinking - I was advised by the GP (Doc not grand parents) to drink guinness - can't stand the bloody stuff, ate a lot of red meat instead.

No one ever admits to smoking in pregnancy - you might as well ask to be flayed alive.

Jumping, I'm really glad that none of your 3 children suffered any ill effects. Statistically, it's unlikely anyway. But apply it to the whole population of babies and back to sleep has saved lives.

I'm 31 and the weaning guidelines were 4 months when my mum weaned me

Worra... I've been around - mostly the gym now. My boden-clad arse is a bit smaller now but I'm having a hard time coming to terms with the fact that; a) my boden stuff doesn't really fit now and b) there is nothing that I like in the current Autumn/Winter catalogue...

My life is O-VER...

How's tricks? I'm shamelessly hi-jacking the judgey thread, best thing to do really...

you are friends with people you dont agree with , they give their child cola really ? why are you still getting status updates from them ,

I would suspect (but don't knowwith absolue certainty) that the studies would have compensated for those factors.

Welsh - I am 28 and my mum says the same. Weaning age was increased in 1994 and again in 2003, seems odd that people think it might go back to 10 weeks for some reason

The latest research suggests that cot death is a delayed letting go of a particular womb reflex (don't know name sorry).

Reflexes are involuntary physical responses to stimulus, certain ones such as Moro reflex or Plantar grasp, exist in infants at certain ages but disappear as baby's body system matures, usually at a typical age.

In the womb there is a reflex of the lungs which is there to protect the foetus. When the foetus is mature enough it will start to practice exercising its lungs, in preparation for birth. The activity is not necessary for life however, so if for any reason the oxygen levels go down (due to mothers activity, position, pressure on cord etc), the foetus will cease 'breathing' in order to conserve the available oxygen for vital life functions instead.

This reflex should disappear at birth, the disappearance triggered by birth hormones etc. However in some babies it is thought it does not and disappears later (varying in when). It is thought that all babies have lost this reflex by 1yo which is why the risk of cot death goes down drastically at this age.

If the baby still has this reflex, anything which causes oxygen levels to fall will make baby stop breathing. Which is why there are so many factors which are linked to cot death. All the factors are associated with reduction in oxygen - smoking; airway partially blocked by being face down, etc etc.

So the cot death baby is different to you or I in that if it can't breathe fully, instead of fighting for breath, it actually stops instead.

Of course, there may be some other physical characteristics which are associated with delayed reflex disappearance, perhaps the hearing disorder thing which Jumping mentions would be one.

So the understanding around cot death causes is developing, and this is why it is highly unlikely the recommendations are going to go backwards.

I'd judge like hell. Possibly do a face right at them.

I'm super judgey though, newborns with headbands on anyone?

That's really interesting Jenner

Babies do love babywalkers. Right up to the point that they tip down steps or on to hard, sharp or hot surfaces or reach up for something that they pull down on themselves. The design has been modified in the last 10 years to try and make them more safe but they are NOT safe and they hinder not help development.

I judge headbands too. NOT because they look daft - though they do. But because I think they're a choking risk.

I agree with you OP; but it's not your child and none of your business. We are all different and this family are doing what they think is best. YABU I'm afraid, sorry.

Nooooo Lying there's always Laura Ashley...do they still exist?

I would have suggested Woolies or Pollards but...I don't want to show my age

I'm great thanks...will stop hijacking thread now

OK comlicated Fb situation ok I take back my comment , we have a laura ashley in our town centre never been in the tweeness would choke me

My DS loved his baby walker, I have fond(ish) memories of him grabbing the beads from the christmas tree and dragging it at high speed across the living room floor (no lights!)! he now plays football at club level and has been recommended for a tryout at County level in cricket. Both my DC's used them and walked at roughly the same time as other babies.
DD2 is 6 months and we've been weaning for a couple of weeks. Later than her brother and sister but earlier than the guidlines. 10weeks, yes I would judge but it's not your baby, nothing you say will make a difference. Every parent does something other people judge them for, even you...