effects of CC

[papillon]

i just found this review in amazon.. does anyone agree ... disagree? I have heard of Gina Ford but not Elizabeth Pantley

...Australia the Association of Infant Mental Health have issued a warning against the method of "controlled crying" which she advocates as it can lead to psychological problems!! Gina's job is to train babies, she has no interest in the child's mental or physical (scheduled feeds can lead to dehydration and failure to thrive) well being for the future. She just wants her money for her quick fix methods! She's not even a mother herself, just a baby trainer. Babies aren't meant to be trained, they need to be nurtured and loved and leaving a baby to cry until it believes it has been abandoned and then shuts up to conserve energy is not my idea of caring for a loved one! Dissociation and learned helplessness are not pyschological problems i wish to instill in my baby for the sake of a full nights sleep! This woman makes me so cross! I second the reader (dated the 7th of november) who suggests a far kinder book to look at - "The no-cry sleep solution" by Elizabeth Pantley. At least she has had children so has some idea what she is talking about!

There is know way on this earth you can get knowledge on having children without having them. None. I thought i was an expert before i had them, i was surrounded by kids all my life as my parents were foster parents. I thought i knew it all. Noooo way. Did not. Feel like an idiot for thinking so.
My x's new girlfreind incidently thinks she is well equiped to look after my children because she has a little brother. Get a grip love.

Message withdrawn

Forestfly, the best parents are the ones without children....,)

Bloss

can't quite resist in persisting here - sorry!

if a baby is crying and just needs to settle to sleep, then doubtless it will be ok for a few minutes if left. Finally it will stop bothering and retunr to sleep.

Crying for two hours indicates strongly to me that the need for4 comfort and reassurance far outweighs the need for immediate sleep. Because we are all different -as you yourslef would admi re your own children.

it seems to me that to simply shut the door on that sort of baby - although eventually the child will of course 'give up' - is to set up problems, for the parent-child relationsip and the child.

ignoring a child til it gives up is not exactly a revolution in childcare - it is brutal reality.

my point with this type of method is that leaving a babay for a very short while may well help but when it turns into this terrible battle of wills, with parents ignoring an appropriate urge to attend to the needs of a highly distressed child, then it is wrong. cc should not be a last resort - ie if you can't get them to sleep, just ignore them. that to me is the time to get in touch with someone who you can discuss the individual needs of an individual child.

distress of this sort is distress and should never never be ignored. it is cruel. simply and plainly and I think it's time that there was more flexibility here - that I don't hear from the advocated of cc who seem to say -just persist - whatever the cost - til it works, because of course it will work! but that;s like beating na child til it shuts up in my view.

I accept I am putting this rather passionately but I do think the thread I read revealed that thissort of denial of affection is evidently very bad for babies when it is rigidly to adhered to over a peiod of time despite thissort of extreme protest from the child.

I am not levelling this all at yo bloss - i wnat to hear from other people who have a view onn this

J

Two, I don't really dare comment on the main issue as I am a true wimp but just thought I'd point out that, ime, even mentioning to a health visitor or their accomplices that your baby doesn't sleep through the night, cuddles/breastfeeds to sleep or has other even more unmentionable bad habits like napping in your arms will elicit an immediate instructiion to try cc or, if they're less than 6 months old, settling (a euphemism for crying I think)themselves to sleep after a feed/nappy change. They really don't seem to have an answer that involves a sensitive look at their daily routine (not that ds had one) or secret but miraculous sensitive methods allowing your child to get a ful nights sleep withoiut a murmur - largely because I don't think any exist. Not meaning to be sarcy but your trust in the services of the NHS seems slightly naive.
Also, and now I'm getting out of my depth, I don't think that my friends who've used cc (with varying degrees of success) have carried out a more socially acceptable equivalent of beating their children into submission. All the children seem happy, bouncy and secure and are completely loved by their parents. i haven't done it and would prefer to avoid it (like I say I'm a big wimp and also unlike Bloss's ds my ds has always been fairly easy sleepwise despite my haphazard approach - wakes fairly often but easily settled aghh fate is now tempted) but never say never with children (so far with me -biscuits, disposables when knackered, cbeebies, cbeebies web site, cbeebies dvds.......)

CRoak

If you knew me, how astonished would you be to hear that I have a trust in health professionals!

I have long long ghastly experience of NHS, so no worries about naievety there - if only!

I am merely saying that 2hrs, vomiting til sick is no way acceptable and as it happens I do think that is cruel.Amazed that it is neccessary to argue the point and I suppose that's why I am arguing it. My point is about taking methods to extremes and failing to acknowledge that this is not the best method for your child.

If a baby was co-sleeping and spent the whole night awake and uncomfortable, I wouldn't advocate pesisting in it.

I don't beleieve there isn't a better solution to wakefulness. Or even improved wakefulness - which I presume is what we are aiming for? or is the objective to immediately get a full night's sleep?

Isn't saying that it's 'the only way' (not quoting from you) rather like saying, 'we had a child who was experienceing uncontrollable tantrums. Finally we decided that by locking them in their room for 2 hrs at a time we could effectively shut down the tantrum. so we did that and we realsied that the child didn't 'need' anything - just to be ignored.' In other words, if the problem gets out of hand, shut it away.

What is so weird is that I am not exactly a hippie style mother. I have a routine of sorts which evolved out of having children and structuring the day to provide rest, play and housework. My children go to bed a regular time and I would never say I would never smack. But a baby is a very vulberable thing and I don't understand anyone who can advocate leaving it to cry for two hours until it is sick.

Totally agree with you. Can't carry on the debate as am rofl about how I seem to have got myself into a position of defending cc after all the times I've debated its rights and wrongs with dp from the completely opposite angle. I don't know anyone in the real world who's gone to such lengths and can't imagine it really so am not surprised that you're sitting there thinking "why am I the only one here stating the bleeding obvious" . Only point was that I really could't imagine a hv suggesting anything else than cc from my experience (though happy to be corrected - mine was a serious exception to the rule by actually supporting no solids up to 6 months before the gov did and got no end of stick from other mums for it so know that they're betweeen a rock and a hard place). Our parenting styles sound pretty similar though I could do with upping the housework and decreasing the mumsnetting.
By the way - keep writing the long posts, think you're one of the only people who's are generally longer than mine

Really didn't want to get caught up on this debate BUT can I just say this...

"cc" does not involve leaving your child crying for 2 hours to the point of vomiting!

I did "cc" with DS1 when he was just over a year after both he and I were on the verge of collapse due to his nightwakings of 8/9 times a night.

It took a few days maximum - at no point was he screaming, at no point was he left crying for longer than 10 minutes and when he did cry I went in, settled him back down, kissed him goodnight and left the room. He knew that I would go to him if he cried, but he also learnt that I wasn't going to be getting him out of his cot.

Less than a week later, he was sleeping 9pm - 7am - this in turn improved his appetite as he wasn't so knackered to eat all the time.

He's now 6.5 yo - I've never had to do CC since that time and he now sleeps 7.30pm to 7.00am.

Anyway, just wanted to add that - I've been seething sitting here reading posts that assume "cc" means leaving your child to scream for 2 hours to the point of sickness.

OK Bloss truce - and if I have unintentially hurt or offended you in any way I too am sorry!

I think sometimes what we all forget in some of these discussions is that we are all trying to do what we believe is best for our children - if I gave you the impression in any way that I felt that was not what you were trying to do then it was completely unintentional.

I have no doubt that our parenting styles are very different but that doesn;t mean we don't both believe they are right for our children.

My son cried very hard the other day with many real tears for about 15minutes I suppose (his first tantrum perhaps??) - because I got him a pink lollipop and not a blue one (a misunderstanding between us). I do not think he was in real distress. He would have stopped crying in a moment if I'd got him a blue lollipop as well, but I didn't. I tend to agree with Bloss that crying does not necessarily mean your child is undergoing a terrible emotional agony that will scar for life. Lots and lots of children seem to be capable of crying passionately for hours because they aren't allowed an ice-cream for lunch,or because they have to leave a party, or because they want to stick their fingers in the plug socket - it doesn't mean they are suffering spiritual agonies or that it is right to give them what they are screaming for. As it happens I doubt I would feel happy if ds was sick with crying, but then he is never sick unless has a bug, some Mumsnetter's children vomit simply because they are cheerfully excited so it is clear some children vomit much more easily than others. Crying is a funny thing - I cry when I'm angry, I cry enjoyably at sad movies, I also cry when I'm sad - it's not as simple crying = emotional pain and distress = needs reassurance. If someone tried to hug me when I was crying with anger, I'd probably deck them!
And like Skinky, I did cc with ds and there was no screaming or vomiting. I think if you've always had a child that slept quite well, and returned to sleep quickly after night wakings, you do not know what it is like.

Hmm my experience right or wrong is
DS now aged 10 totally abandoned in his got at 9 mths after all that time of waking on average 10 x a night and not settling, at one point shortly preceding the cc effort he slept 20 mins out of every hour, I was suicidal and ill. I read about it sought doctors advice and they said go for it
Took 3 days he has slept like an angel since and is still a happy well balanced adored kid.
DD now aged 16 mths has loved sleeping since born
Think GF is load of balls though in most respects

I think the point I am making is that it is important to distinguish between the type of crying that is going on.

A toddler and a baby are totally different creatures, so no point in comparing I would have thought.

A baby that cries for two hours until they are sick is not complaining because they haven't got what they want.

It's all very well to say that if you're child has slept reasonably well from a certain point then you don't understand but I am not sure how that makes a case for allowing to leave a child for that long until they are so overwrought they are throwing up. That doesn't seem to me to exihibit much understanding or compassion when it comes to babies. My sympathy departs from the parents and goes to the child if the people think that this is ok.

Apart from anything else, a baby can choke on its vomit and if the parent is stoically covering their ears in another room because they have been led to believe that this is the only means open to them to get their child to sleep, then they are unlikely to know that this dangerous event is in progress.

Croak, I have met much same HVs as you but was pleased that the other day my sis met a HV who was totally opposed to cc before 6 months- must say, most guides to childcare are.

I think the cc thing which takes 10-15 mins as a max time is probably about right in right situation. didn't do it myself but makes sense.

I'm disappointed that when talking about young babies and vomiting and this grossly extended period of unattended crying, so few people seem able to say that is better than anything else.

Aloha, my sister was severly mentally handicapped and cried through the night for most of her life at home (40 years). That means fukll-on, adult yelling. That crying could rarely be subdued becaus eit was not motibated by the impulses that prompt a baby to cry. That means for years at a time, my family all suffered a degree of sleep deprivation, living as we did in a very small house. I nonetheless would rather give up having children altogether if the best I could offer my own children was two hours of crying alone until they were sick. I think just about anything is better than that.

After reading all this thread, sometimes with amazement, other times with despair, it seems to me there are so many confusions here. So my views on the subject - which aren't to say others views are less valid or correct :-

Firstly there is the assumption that GF and CC are the same. My understanding (and this is not a vote for GF) is that she advocates a routine which means from an early age your child learns to settle themselves. Leaving no need for CC. She also is the only person I have ever read that says outright that if a baby is fed, clean and otherwise fine, sometimes they need to be left alone to sleep. I honestly believe this is the only useful info I got from her book, but it makes sense - as an adult I toss and turn sometimes and take a while to fall asleep, a baby whinging and grumpy is often doing the same.

I did do CC with DD1, and it certainly is not about leaveing a baby for hours until they are sick, I think is an awful assumption and cannot believe any mother really does do that. Ok I am sure someone will post and say I am wrong, but CC is CONTROLLED CRYING, ie 5 mins, 7 mins, 10 mins etc, and most parents who try this find within days it works. I did for night wakenings, DD was 13 months old and had a habit of waking at 2am, to break this I used CC (and in the middle of the night it would have been easier to continue to feed her, as that was the habit) It took about 4 days, but has since lasted and DD is 5. CC is not advocted for babies under 6 months, and I think most people use it on babies over a year.

Why are people being so unsupportive on this thread? Surely we are all doing what is best for our children, Bloss's son having a rest or 'quiet time' others spending nice 1 on 1 time with their children. It is a personal choice, and should be accepted as such.

I think the point I made originally today has been born out by this discussion and that is that the problem with cc (and that is linked to GF) is that people who adopt this idea seem utterly unable to accept that it is not always the best thing to do, even if a child is clearly made extremely distressed. This means that as an approach it becomes a clumsy tool which could be damaging to a child's development.

But nobody here is saying that, two. I'm not sure where you've got it from. I do think babies under one are capable of crying out of frustration and fury as well as distress. If you set up cc as meaning 'leaving a two month old to cry in an agony of abandonment for two hours until they vomit' then of course, nobody would do it or say it was a good idea. But that's not what people are saying at all.

And cc and GF are NOT the same thing.

Also, who has said that everyone must do cc? Or that it is the only solution? Or even anything similar? I think most people have said that if you child wakes constantly in the night and you are feeling desperate and exhausted, and your child is tired and unhappy, then cc can work extremely effectively at teaching your child to go to sleep by themselves and stay asleep so you all benefit.

to respond to crunchie - I think the confusion lies in the ways in which GF and CC are interpreted and this is not a confusion of my making. It is what I read on a thread (which aggravatingly I can't find again) and was in the reaction of parents to a worried mother - 'keep on' was their messge. 'At whatever the cost.'

I am not confusing cc with vomiting but find myself arguing about wether a vomiting child that has been left to cry for 2 hrs is perfectly ok.

bloss is perfectly capable of fighting her own corner and jmg was quite entitled to say she didn't go for putting her child in a room for a quiet time. she was merely saying she had a different approach to childcare.

So aloha, why can't you come out and say that a baby that cries for two hours and vomits is clearly unhappy but introduce suggestions that this might not be the case, hence your analogy with a toddler? Bloss did the same thing.

I was kind of expecting someone to say: cc is not about leaving a child for two hours etc etc, not a list of reasons about situations in which vomiting does not mean distress.

Two, you appear to believe that anyone who agrees with cc is basically an unloving brute capable of anything. If that is the case, then talking about it is pointless.

Think the origins of this discussion have been overlooked but it began this morning when I read a thread about other mothers urging a parent to stick it out, wlthough she thought her baby was very distressed.

And people on this thread (today at least) HAVE said that cc can be a last resort and HAVE debated the pros and cons of vomiting

Fair enough Aloha

But I think you seem determined to interpret my comments in that way, without ever seeming to read the countless times that I have said I do not think that about cc.

Actually, as I said, my son almost never vomits. I personally would find it upsetting. All I said was that vomiting does not, it seems, necessarily imply extreme distress in young children. Some seem to vomit very easily in response to almost anything - slightly too much food, excitement, crying. So I cannot say that it is always an evil mother whose child vomits, or that a child who vomits is more upset than a child who doesn't. I imagine it is very rare and is really nothing to do with cc. Personally, I wouldn't do cc on a child younger than six months either and I don't understand why you keep saying that older babies and toddlers are irrelevant to this discussion.

RE comparing a baby under a year to a toddler - why? They are different entities.

MY ORIGINAL POST was about a post in which a mother was distressed because in an attempt to get her child to sleep she had been leaving it to cry but after two hours, child was distraught and sick.

The respondents to her dilemma, far from suggesting that amaybe this was not the best technique for child, give it a rest, try somethnig else, told her to persist.

My point was that it disturbed me that the respondents did not suggest that this was not a good idea. Because - and I stand by the EXACT statement, a baby that cries persistently til it vomits needs something other than being ignored. Toddlers have no bearing on that point. It is a fcat.

Incidentally, I do not use hyperbole like evil, or brute - that it superimposing your reactions onto my remarks