AIBU re: sending your newborn to the hospital nursery?

[coraltoes]

A good friend of mine has given birth in a private london hospital. I popped in yesterday to visit her, on what is was day 2 of her stay there post CS. I have to say what an amazing place it was, but i was left feeling a bit cold about something and wondered if I was wrong to?

She looked well rested, and I asked how the days and nights were going, as god knows newborns can be all over the place with their sleep and feeds. Her reply surprised me. She had been sending him to the nursery to sleep at night, from about 8pm with them bottle feeding him (she has chosen not to BF) through the night when he needs it. She did this from day 1.

Now, it is the kind of place that would help you in the night by your bed if you needed it, so she wouldnt have to make up bottles whilst struggling to walk with a scar etc. So I was a bit "hmmmmm" about not even letting your newborn sleep near you on his first night in the world, so you can get some sleep. If you had laboured for 2 nights i can see the appeal but her Csection was scheduled, and took place at the start of the day.

What do you guys make of it? Would you use the same service? Maybe i'm being a bit precious!

Extended family has been raising the babies forever in other cultures and at one time in the UK, also. There was no attachment issues as long as the care was consistant, the problem is that a lot of the early research focused on the mother, some believe that was to have men economically active.

The reasearch now shows that it is upheaval in the first couple of years not the first few weeks,that is harmful.

The only shame is that there isn't another family member there for the baby to be handed to, rather than MW's.

Birds - most women want to breastfeed (85% in my area) Close and prolonged skin to skin between mum and baby in the first few weeks of parenthood is the most reliable way of optimising the likelihood of breastfeeding success. There is simply no easy way to circumvent the physiology of lactation!

Birds - in developing countries where lactation failure can spell death for newborns, mothers and babies are rarely separated in the first few days and weeks of life. Later when lactation is established other female relatives may feed the baby in the event of the mothers absence.

Scrounging - do you honestly have to ask?! You really think I'm comparing your situation to a mum who chooses to pack her baby off to the night nursery night after night simply so she can get her beauty sleep?! C'mon, of course I'm not!

Birds - in developing countries where lactation failure can spell death for newborns, mothers and babies are rarely separated in the first few days and weeks of life.
Birds - most women want to breastfeed

But the case in the OP, doesn't and i work in a very low area of bf rates, so from my POV, we need stratagies that would get and keep dad involved (i am a CP SW), my clients do not bf.

We are not in developing countries, we need policies relevent to all situations in the UK. I handle cases where Mum won't take baby home, but nan or aunty, will, they should be allowed to stay, after CS,as they will be primary carers,even if baby does reside with mum.

I am going to be a step nan, i cannot persuade my relative to bf. It is her that will go into the mum and baby unit, without her partner,if it came to a CS, he should be with her, there are big gaps in provision.

I have to be up to date on research around baby's being raised not by mum in the early days.

I am from Native American background, care is shared and babies were taken away between feeds, it didn't interupt bonding and gave a greater sense of belonging.

I bf on demand, but i deal with mums who don't and absolutely don't want to try.

Birds - there's a strong argument for supporting breastfeeding and promoting it among disadvantaged groups, in that children from these groups appear to have more to gain from it than children from more privileged backgrounds. That's why so many bf initiatives and spending is focused on these groups.

But I agree - wider families do need more support and it's a good thing for them to be involved in the immediate care of postnatal women - as long as it is done with the consent of the mother (though frankly I can't think of anything more distressing than having my MIL or DM 'take charge' of my newborn baby or consider themselves equal care givers - Jesus no.

Can't really understand why disadvantaged women should be expected to bond less fiercely with their newborns than the m/c mothers of mumsnet, the majority I suspect who would share my extreme discomfort at the thought of DM and DMIL's muscling in to cart their babies off. But hey ho maybe motherhood doesn't make sisters of us all.

I wouldn't leave my newborn in the hospital nursery, you have become a mum they need you. Your needs have now become second, your baby is first. Can't imagine why anyone would want to send there newborn baby away for the night :(

Happilymarried155 you've skipped a whole thread and the Op - the mother had a C-section .... major invasive surgery.

Alot of people have c sections and manage just fine

If you believe half the posts on the childbirth board, planned c/s is VASTLY less painful, stressful, tiring, risky and debilitating than the majority of vaginal births. in fact, this is given as the most common rationale for opting for a planned c/s, when there are no medical issues to be considered.

Seriously? Do you believe a CS isn't painful. I couldn't walk for 24hrs and was over a week before I could stand up straight again.

As for not risky, what can I say. I nearly died, mind you I had been awake for the previous 96 hrs with regular contractions with the last 12 hrs fully dilated and wanting to push.

They did decide I would need a planned section the next time mind you as the consultant felt my chances of a successful vaginal birth (due to pelvic malformation) was close to zero. Had an emergency section though after going into labour.

But that's the point - planned c/s have (generally) much better outcomes than emergency c/s.

Less bleeding
Lower rates of infection
Less likely to end up needing to be readmitted.

Yes in relative terms a planned section is statisically safer than an emergency one. However it does not make it pain or risk free. I can honestly say I would have been a lot happier with a vaginal birth.

50shades

"just so they can get their beauty sleep" Could you get any more patronising.

One of the things I aim to teach my children is compassion, tolerance and understanding of others choices. I aim to teach my children these important life skills by being a good role model and showing tolerance and compassion towards others choices. I try to show how I can listen to others and try to understand and not judge.

IMO these skills are far more important than a few hours in a nursery being well cared for by professionals. What do you think?

Shagmund, it's still major surgery, though - easier than an emergency section doesn't equal a walk in the park. I think women who want to have a planned section want one because it would be easier than a complicated vaginal delivery, not because it would be easier than a vaginal delivery with no problems. Certainly my view was that if I could have a choice my choices would be (1) Straightforward vaginal delivery, no complications (2) Elective section (3) Complicated vaginal delivery with forceps etc (4) Emergency section after long labour. I was lucky, I got (1) and got out of hospital the same day. But I was saying to the midwife at my antenatal appointments that if there was any reason to suppose I wouldn't have a straightforward delivery, I wanted a planned section. I wasn't kidding myself that I'd have a particularly easy time if I had a section (of any kind), though, and if I had had one I would have arranged for more help after DS was born.

Sounds great to me. I probably wouldn't have done it, but thats only because I struggle to sleep in hospital anyway. I certainly wouldn't stand in judgement over another woman making the choice thats right for her. I would have said yes to the maternity nurse at home though, sounds absolutely amazing. Although I don't know if I could have done whilst bf. Someone to give some serious help over the first two weeks would have been greatly appreciated though.

Not read whole thread but wish my
NHS hospital had done this. I had five nights post birth with no sleep and two nights pre birth with no sleep and at one stage they tool her to be near nurses station so I could sleep and then when I woke a few hours later she was back with me. But wow, a whole night - I'd have killed for that.

This is how it used to be "in the old days", is it not?

My mum was shocked that new mums in this day and age had the babies with them. In her day, the newborns stayed in the nursery most of the time, while mum recovered from giving birth.

At the hospital where I had DS2 last year there was no nursery, it was simply not an option. You had to take the baby everywhere with you (the toilets allowed for this). At the place where I had DS1 14 years ago they had a nursery behind the MW station where you could leave your baby for a short time eg to have a bath or make a phone call but overnight you had to cope.

I personally have three by C-section. I did send my baby back and forth to the nursery so that I could get some rest before I went home and had to do it all by myself

Zombie

I could have kissed the lovely mw who took ds2 off me at about 2am on night 1...it had been a very long painful back to back labour I was absolutely exhausted and he was quite sickly/mucousy and was finding it hard to settle...every time he settled he'd spit up mucus all over himself or his cot so I was always changing something...she took him and I managed to get some much needed sleep....don't think they had a proper nursery but had room behind the mw station