To want to 'protect' a newborn from smokers?

[jonsnowssocks]

This is all theoretical atm, but am 8 months pregnant so will probably turn into an issue soon.

Lots of smokers amongst friends and family and I'm not sure how to handle them when it comes to visiting and holding the baby. Ideally, I'd ask anyone who has recently smoked to wash their hands, brush their teeth and change any smoky clothes before touching the little one, but would that make me just totally over-the-top precious about it? What would be a good compromise?

Hummy - the manner in which my children eat means there is no discernible risk. If the grape is particularly large, they bite it first. If it's normal child mouth size, they chew it. Why wouldn't I cut them up? Because it communicates to the child, however innocuously, that instead of managing risk, mummy will help you avoid it. That is not a life lesson I want my children to learn. Same as they can learn to climb by having the odd fall, learn to ride a bike by wiping out, learn to swim by occasionally having a little splutter, and so on. Let's take another freak and tragic accident scenario. I bet if we compared the stats for a similar period in a similarly populated country, a similar number of children may have been tragically killed by vehicles mounting the pavement as by choking via whole grape. No one in their right mind would tell you that you could never walk on a pavement because someone, somewhere, once mounted a pavement and killed a child. And yet we tell children not to eat whole grapes because one or two people out of 70 million grape eating Brits were very unlucky. Why not teach them to bite and chew properly and eat sensibly at a table, as we would teach them to look out for cars rather than avoid them?

I'm not trying to be facetious here, I'm just definitely of the parenting body that thinks kids need to learn to face hazards sensibly, not avoid them.

Why wouldn't I cut them up? Because it communicates to the child, however innocuously, that instead of managing risk, mummy will help you avoid it

Oh come on, you help them avoid risk all the time! Do you help them put on their seatbelt, help them climb the stairs, take sharp knives off them?

They are babies ffs. A young child hungry might forget once to bite into a grape, or be startled as they are putting it in their mouth. The issue with grapes is that if they do get in the airway, the skin makes it stick there and it's all but impossible to remove or do CPR. Choking on a cut grape has a much higher chance or survival.

Choking is the third leading cause of death in children.

And actually, on pavements I make my children walk on the inside, and I walk closer to the road. A simple thing, but might make the difference between them surviving or not.

Inlove - you can teach your children to eat grapes safely all you want, but you're missing the main point, they are young children. Their minds don't assess and think through everything they do no matter how much mummy has told them it's not safe to eat this way, if their sitting at the table sensibly something can easily distract them, they could forget to chew etc and could choke. Their not adults who can foresee potential risks and act accordingly, to assume so is ignorant.

As Micah said, you can teach your children about risks appropriately and not be over board, but you also need to take sensible precautions and understand that their brains aren't as developed as adults and they will forget/have accidents. I would never put my child's life in potential danger because I wanted them to 'learn a lesson' there are appropriate times and scenarios to do that effectively where their lives won't be at risk.

It's fine if you're parenting style is different, but to call all parents who cut grapes etc as 'bonkers' is, well, bonkers!

I find Inlove's suggestion that all these children choked on grapes because they were piss-balling about and not eating sensibly. Newsflash - adults choke! Do you reckon they were doing handstands in restaurants and not sitting nicely! What a completely ridiculous assumption to make!

I cut up grapes because because on the hypothetical day your child chokes on a grape, you don't want to be sat there saying "but the stats said it was a minute risk so I just couldn't be bothered"

And you will love me, I do make people wash their hands before holding my baby. Because I don't know if you've been scratching your fanny and picking your nose and I don't want that on my 2 week old. I think hand washing is fair, people should wash their hands regularly... unless Inlove thinks standard hygiene is a step too far.

My DS choked on a butterbean. I had to hold him upside down and whack him on the back to get it out. He was 9 months old, perhaps I should have taught him better table manners, InLove.

OP, I don't think YABU at all. My DM is a heavy smoker and I make her change in to one of my tops before she holds the baby

I find Inlove's suggestion that all these children choked on grapes because they were piss-balling about and not eating sensibly.

If their parents had looked to Inlove's exemplary parenting and simply taught their baby/child to eat properly then no child would ever choke.

I'm sure that's a great comfort to the parents of children who have choked and died. When they're trying to resuscitate their child I'm sure they're thinking "I told him to bite the grape, it's his own fault, he knew better, I did everything I could to stop this happening".

The child's pov is it's OK because mummy was teaching me a lesson about risk. Not why didn't she protect me, all she had to do was cut the sodding grape in half.

It's fine to let children manage their own risk if the consequence is a scratch, a cut, maybe a broken limb. But death is one you can't learn from and avoid in future.

Didn't say my parenting was exemplary, I was just giving my opinion, as I am entitled to do.

I think the butter bean example shows how grapes are not the only risk. All food is a risk if you want to see it that way. Personally I see it as sustenance, as do my children.

I think the butter bean example shows how grapes are not the only risk. All food is a risk if you want to see it that way

As I explained upthread- any food is a risk. But choke on a butterbean, half a grape, a cube of cheese etc, and there's a good chance that first aid will work, bang on the back, heimlich etc, and up it will come, as in whatwhat's case.

The issue with whole grapes is the skin is "sticky" and adheres to the surface of the trachea. Choke on a whole grape and it's all but impossible to shift. You die.

Cersai - I completely agree with standard hygiene - washing hands after toilet, fanny scratching, etc. Washing hands before handling a child is not standard hygiene in most households.

My sister is a consultant surgeon. Her advice to me on having kids was not to get too hung up on hygiene. She was absolutely clear on hand washing after the toilet etc, and was clear that the dangers are mainly from faecal matter rather than wee, but said constant hand washing, use of anti-bad sprays etc meant kids weren't being exposed to the bugs and bacteria they need to develop healthy immune systems. Not saying a newborn shouldn't be protected but if your child or visitors usually wash their hands after the loo (and who doesn't?!) then anything else is probably overkill. Plus anyone whose newborn has a sibling has zero chance of policing dirty fingers, toes, kisses, cuddles all being generously bestowed upon said newborn without any hand washing whatsoever.

Dixie - I am absolutely listening. I just disagree. It's called adult debate.

People are bad at risk assessment.
You weigh up the likelihood of danger, the reward for taking the risk and the severity of the danger.

If the risk of injury occuring is extremely low, the severity of the potential injury is extremely high, and the reward for taking the risk is very low it is not a risk worth taking.

Here the risk of choking is low, the severity of the outcome should choking occur is potentially catastrophic, the reward for taking the risk is you save yourself about 20 seconds and teach your child grapes must be chewed.

The vast majority of adults would immediately assess this as a bad risk and would not endanger a baby's life when they can simply be taught to chew grapes when they are a little older.

Yanbu
Anyone who's visiting/just come in from shops etc should wash or gel hands before holding newborn.
And yes for smokers minimum of washing hands and at very least a clean separate blanket between them and baby. Ideally change top or just don't hold baby!
It sounds easy to say but really you won't care if people think you're precious when your tiny baby is here. As others have said, quote the midwife if it helps.

I think the butter bean example shows how grapes are not the only risk. All food is a risk if you want to see it that way. Personally I see it as sustenance, as do my children."

I otoh think that what the butter bean example shows is that grapes are not butter beans. The poster's baby got a butter bean stuck and the butter bean was dislodged through standard treatment. Because it was not a grape.

Posters with medical experience have tried to explain that grapes behave differently to most other food stuffs when stuck in the throat. Presumably they know.

Again, you do not seem to meet the objection that a lot of us with older children do not find that any behaviour of ours around them as babies bears any relevance to how we behave around them when we get older. When dd was a baby she slept in my room. When she was a toddler I cut up her grapes. When she was 7 I was happy for her to fry meat and use a whittling knife. Because I used the risk assessment as defined by an earlier poster.

Because the benefit of saving myself the effort of cutting up a few grapes was very small and could not outweigh the small risk, but the benefits of an older child learning to cook were great and imo outweighed any small risk.

Obviously if you feel you have such a loose grip on your own judgment that you think any decision you make as the parent of a newborn will permanently undermine any chances of making a balanced judgment about an older child, then I suppose that too will have to be weighed into the balance. Never felt that was a problem personally.

Micah is right about grapes. That's why it's recommended to cut those up but not all foods which are grape sized.

MIL was a heavy smoker when I had our twin boys (prematurely, with underdeveloped lungs). I asked her to wash her hands, brush her teeth and change her shirt before cuddly the babies. She was not impressed and insisted that smoking was fine around kids, but I stood my ground. If we were ever caught in a situation where she couldn't change her shirt, I'd carry around a spare muslin wrap and get her to throw it over her shoulder on the side the babies would be snuggling into. It was a bit of a drama at the time but I don't regret putting my foot down. She's since had to quit smoking and has emphysema...and now accepts that smoking is bad.

Bunny85 get you! I couldn't get a midwife to help me up to go to the loo, help me wipe loads of blood off me or help me feed my baby after birth. I'm amazed they were so worried about people potentially smoking around your baby, they didn't seem like they would've been concerned had I dropped down dead. They practically chucked us out!

Hand washing with a very newborn is normal IME. I don't see that tooth brushing would be effective and wouldn't insist on the rules you have because they are a bit much.

www.nyc.gov/html/doh/downloads/pdf/smoke/protect-your-baby.pdf

This says to avoid the clothes of the smoker too... I know it's American but there is some good advice on third hand smoke and toxins.

Agree that everyone should wash their hands before touching a newborn. And I don't pass mines around either, only my partner, my and his parents and the midwifes got to hold them. I think it's a bit unsettling for newborns to be in the arms of people they don't know.

My BiL smoked so we asked him to wait until after his fag to hold the baby (couple of hours gap) but we rarely saw him so non-issue. HOWEVER I banned perfume - my MiL wears V strong perfume so we asked that nobody wear perfume if they intended to hold our ever so precious darling little bundle of poo fun. They grumbled a lot but complied. I hated having my baby back and all I could smell was her perfume let alone the poor baby. However the children are older now and she STILL wears v strong perfume - and when she comes to stay I have to rewash all their clothes as it is so strong, I even have a pillow that only she uses as it has transferred on to it. She says she can hardly smell it so she puts more on!!!! It also really bugs me that the car seatbelt stinks of her perfume long after she has been sitting in the seat. Maybe I should get over, it but it right winds me up now maybe this is payback for banning it in the first place !!!

thetigerdidit sorry, but that is crazy behaviour.

I would definitely ask wash hands thoroughly with anti bac soap. Also If they have JUST had a fag I wouldn't let them hold for a bit. And I didn't with my baby. I also made EVERYONE that came to my house wash their hands. I don't care - my baby and my rules.

DS was born nearly 10 years ago and at the time we were advised that all visitors up until He was about 3? Months old should definitely wash their hands before holding him, that's all visitors whether smokers or not, because newborn immune systems aren't able to defend against daily germs etc. Once they get a bit bigger and especially crawling all bets are off - but the immune system and gut flora have developed to cope with eating worms etc by then! Mother Nature is a wonderful thing really ... Yes of course second and subsequent children will be exposed to more germs from loving siblings etc but my friends/relatives have still managed to give older kids a quick wipe of hands/face before they settle on sofa to cuddle their new brother/sister.
OP definitely not too much to ask. You are totally right to protect your little one from avoidable and unnecessary risks like smoking.