Healthy Me - At Home and Away: Infant

Showing posts with label Infant. Show all posts

Wednesday, January 16, 2013

German doctors warn against Internet trade in breast milk

And this is happening, too?
-----

Posted: 17 October 2012

BERLIN: German pediatricians have warned new parents against obtaining breast milk to feed their babies via social networking sites such as Facebook, cautioning the milk could be harmful.

The Professional Association of Pediatricians said that although mothers milk was generally the best option for a newborn, mothers unable to breastfeed should not acquire it over the Internet.

"Donors can be taking medicines or drugs, have infectious illnesses like AIDS or Hepatitis," Wolfram Hartmann, president of the association, said in a written statement.

"Nobody can check whether the unknown mother's milk is harmless for the particular child," he warned, adding that the milk's quality could also be affected during its transportation.

The warning follows a report by the online edition of German news weekly Der Spiegel and the association's own research, it said.

It also warned that a newborn's nutritional needs differed from those of a baby even of several weeks or months old.

"The milk of a woman who already has an older child does not contain the right nutrient composition for a newborn," it added and said women who were unable to breastfeed should use special powdered milk.

- AFP/fa

-----
Taken from ChannelNewsAsia.com; source article is below:
German doctors warn against Internet trade in breast milk

Monday, January 31, 2011

Breastfeeding: its strengths and limitations

For my family, my wife quit her work to take care of our kids. We introduce solids from four months, soups, broths, and anything that we eat during meals, which means cooking with the baby in mind. And no, we don't follow the 6-months rule: my wife breastfeeds until the baby stops on its own, way over 2 years old.

It is always your choice as to how and when, no matter what any study may find out or suggest, right?
-----

Posted: 14 January 2011

LONDON: Breastfeeding exclusively for the first six months is not necessarily best for a baby's health, British researchers said Friday, calling into question advice given to new mothers.

The team led by a paediatrician from University College London said babies fed only breast milk could suffer iron deficiency and may be more prone to allergies.

The study says babies could start to be weaned on to solids as early as four months, although other experts advised sticking to the existing guidelines.

Ten years ago, the World Health Organisation (WHO) recommended that infants should be exclusively breastfed for six months.

"Many Western countries, including 65 percent of European member states and the United States, elected not to follow this recommendation fully, or at all," the authors said, although Britain did.

The WHO recommendation "rested largely" on a review of 16 studies, including seven from developing countries.

It concluded that babies given only breast milk for six months had fewer infections and experienced no growth problems.

But another review of 33 studies found "no compelling evidence" not to introduce solids at four to six months, the experts said.

Some studies have also shown that breastfeeding for six months fails to give babies all the nutrition they need.

One US study from 2007 found that babies exclusively breastfed for six months were more likely to develop anaemia than those introduced to solids at four to six months.

On the issue of allergies, the British study said researchers in Sweden found that the incidence of early onset coeliac disease increased after a recommendation to delay introduction of gluten until age six months, "and it fell to previous levels after the recommendation reverted to four months".

The authors said however that exclusively breastfeeding for six months remains the best recommendation for developing countries, which have higher death rates from infection.

But in developed countries, it could lead to adverse health outcomes and may "reduce the window for introducing new tastes".

"Bitter tastes, in particular, may be important in the later acceptance of green leafy vegetables, which may potentially affect later food preferences with influence on health outcomes such as obesity."

The researchers said the European Food Safety Authority's panel on dietetic products, nutrition and allergies has concluded that for infants across the EU, complementary foods may be introduced safely between four to six months.

Experts in Britain challenged the findings of the new study.

Janet Fyle, professional policy adviser at the Royal College of Midwives, said: "I really must challenge the suggestion from the review that the UK should reconsider its current advice on exclusive breastfeeding for six months.

"I believe that this is a retrograde step and plays into the hands of the baby food industry which has failed to support the six-month exclusive breastfeeding policy in the UK."

-AFP/jl

Taken from ChannelNewsAsia.com; source article is below: Breastfeeding may not be best after four months: study

Tuesday, October 19, 2010

Jaundiced newborns more prone to autism: study

WASHINGTON: Infants born with jaundice are at much greater risk of developing autism, a study published Monday showed.

The study published in the US journal Pediatrics found full-term infants born in Denmark between 1994 and 2004 who had jaundice were 67 percent more likely to develop autism.

Neonatal jaundice is usually caused by elevated production of bilirubin, a substance found in bile that results from the normal breakdown of red blood cells.

Jaundice is seen in 60 percent of term infants and usually resolves within the first week of life, but prolonged exposure to high bilirubin levels is neurotoxic and can cause lifelong developmental problems, the study says.

In this study researchers found the risk of autism was higher if the mother had had previous children, or, somewhat oddly, if the child was born between October and March.

The risk for autism disappeared if the child was a firstborn child or was born between April and September. Authors suggest the seasonal difference may be due to different levels of exposure to daylight, which has an effect on jaundice, or due to infections.

The difference in risk in firstborn versus subsequent children could be due to different levels of antibodies in women who have had multiple pregnancies, or it could reflect different levels of access to health care in the first days after delivery.

In Denmark, women with healthy term newborns who have already had children are discharged soon after delivery. Women having their first child remain in the hospital for three to four days, and so jaundice may be diagnosed while the infant is still in the hospital.

-AFP/jl

From ChannelNewsAsia.com; source article is below:Jaundiced newborns more prone to autism: study
-----

Monday, May 10, 2010

Nine months I waited, then...

My wife had a miscarriage on her 4th pregnancy, but more or less, we know why.

But for those who manage to go through the whole nine months of pregnancy, only to lose the baby, I can't imagine that. One step to finish line... then...
-----

Baby boys more likely to die than girls: study

CHICAGO - Baby boys are more likely to die than baby girls and medical advances have actually increased the gender gap, a study released Monday found.

An analysis of infant mortality in 15 developed countries found that baby boys are 24 percent more likely to die than baby girls.

This is down from a peak of 31 percent in 1970, but double the rate in the days before the development of vaccines and public health measures like improved sanitation dramatically improved infant mortality rates.

"During the great historical improvements in infant mortality, the rising male disadvantage in infancy revealed a level of unexpected male vulnerability," the study published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences concluded.

"As infant mortality falls to very low levels, infant deaths become increasingly concentrated among those who are born with some weakness."

The male disadvantage begins in utero.

Eyes Without Sparkle:: A Journey Through Postnatal Illness

Girls have a stronger immune system while boys are 60 percent more likely to be born prematurely and to suffer from respiratory problems, among others. Boys are also more likely to cause risky or difficult labour because of their larger body and head size.

When poor sanitation and nutrition weakened all babies and mothers the male disadvantage was less noticeable: from 1751 until 1870 the gender mortality gap was about 10 to 15 percent.

But the development of the germ theory dramatically cut infectious disease rates, making complications of childbirth and premature birth more common causes of death.

The gender gap rose steadily as infant mortality rates plummeted and only began to reverse with the increased use caesarean sections and improvements in neonatal care.

Practical Parenting Problem Solvers: Your Body After the Birth ("Practical Parenting" Problem Solvers)

Only about five percent of babies born prior to 1970 were delivered by c-section while more than 20 percent of births in the 15 developed nations studied are now performed by c-section.

"Changes in obstetrical practice and neonatal medicine that saved all but the weakest babies have benefited boys more than girls because boys were more vulnerable across the entire range of birth weights," the authors concluded.

"In addition to changes in delivery practices, improvements in neonatal intensive care also may have benefited males more than females."

The 15 countries analyzed include Sweden, France, Denmark, England/Wales, Norway, The Netherlands, Italy, Switzerland, Finland, the United States, Spain, Australia, Canada, Belgium and Japan. - AFP/ar

Depression after Childbirth: How to Recognise, Treat, and Prevent Postnatal Depression

Taken from ChannelNewsAsia.com; source article is below:
Baby boys more likely to die than girls: study
-----

Thursday, June 11, 2009

Rear-facing seats safer for bigger kids too

Posted: 12 June 2009 0935 hrs

A parent belting up her child in a car seat
PARIS: Parents should keep their children in rear-facing car seats at least until the age of four, according to a British study released Friday.

Currently it is common practice in many countries to switch babies to front-facing seats when a child is about nine kilos (20 pounds), the average weight of an eight months old boy, said the study.

British general physician Elizabeth Watson and Michael Monteiro of Sunny Meed Surgery in Woking, near London, reviewed key studies from Europe and the United States to see if any safety patterns emerged.

They found that small children were consistently safer in a car when they were looking where they have been rather than where they were headed.

"Parents and guardians should be advised to keep young children in rear facing seats for as long as possible," the two researchers concluded.

"Excessive stretching or even transection (cutting) of the spinal cord can result if a child is involved in a head-on crash while in a forward facing car seat."

Data from Sweden - where rear-facing seats for kids up to four is the norm - showed that some children in forward-facing booster seats who died in accidents could have survived had then been facing the other way round.

----------
LUMINESCE Products for all skin problems
----------

A review of US National Highway Traffic Safety Administration data on crashes between 1998 and 2003 involving 870 children concluded that rear-facing seats were better at protecting kids up to 23 months across all types of accidents.

Unlike forward-facing seats, rear-facing car seats keep the head, neck and spine fully aligned so the force of the crash is distributed over all of these body areas, noted the study, published on the website of the British Medical Journal.

The researchers called on manufacturers and retailers to increase the availability of rear-facing seats for older children.

They also called for a change to the current weight-range labelling of European seats, which suggest that forward- and rear-facing seats are equally safe for kids over nine kilos.

- AFP/il

From ChannelNewsAsia.com; see the source article here.

Wednesday, May 20, 2009

ASK THE DOC

English: Breastfeeding an infant Português: Um recém-nascido em aleitamento (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Baby’s bowel movement

Question by Claudia Koh

I’ve been breastfeeding my two-month-old baby since birth and she has been passing stool frequently. However, she suddenly stopped doing so for three days. Is there a cause for concern?

Reply from Ms Cynthia Pang, senior lactation consultant, KK Women’s and Children’s Hospital.

It is not uncommon for a breastfed baby at this age to skip passing stool for a couple of days. In most cases, as long as your baby is not ill or crying excessively, and her tummy is soft and she is feeding well, not passing stools for a few days is not a cause for concern. However, if your baby seems unwell, it is advisable to send her to a doctor for a check-up to ensure that there is no other physical problem.

The information provided above is for your general knowledge only. You should seek medical advice or treatment for your condition.

Email health@newstoday.com.sg if you have a medical query.

From TODAY, Health – Tuesday, 19-May-2009

----------
Organic and all-natural drink for health and wellness