The phrase ‘pro-choice’ has been primarily associated with a movement to allow women the legal right to choose an abortion.  The rationale behind this movement is grounded in the belief that a woman has absolute ownership over her body and unborn baby.  This post is not about abortion and I do not necessarily embrace the entire pro-choice movement as the concept of foetal rights introduces complexities for me.  I would however like to explore the meaning of pro-choice outside the abortion realm and what it means in the larger scale of a woman’s rights over her fertility and her body as a whole.

There have been several high profile cases where a woman has become pregnant in unusual (and some may say inadvisable) circumstances, whether naturally or with medical assistance. Michelle Duggar’s 19th baby, Josie, born three months prematurely. ‘Octomom’ Nadya Suleman.  This post in particular was prompted by coverage of  72 year old Rajo Devi Lohan who is now dying following an IVF pregnancy and birth which resulted in a healthy baby but severe maternal complications.

What enraged me about this coverage was the suggestion by a psychiatrist working for Fox News that a 72 year old woman was probably not ‘of sound mind’.   This is pure nonsense.  (Just ask my grandmother who completed a MEd last year at the grand old age of 77).  Lohan’s decision-making process was clearly heavily influenced by a cultural perception where she felt it was better to die than to be barren for the rest of her life.  This may be a difficult leap of logic for Westerners, but it does not make it an insane decision.  The same is true for Suleman or the Duggars.  In fact, one could argue in this age of media attention and poor employment prospects, their fertility choices were a calculated risk –  they both have greatly improved their earning potential and all their babies have thankfully survived.

Yet there is an immense amount of judgement attached to fertility choices.  Women are attacked for remaining childless, for only having one baby, for having more than two babies.  There are perhaps valid reasons for questioning these choices when the women then require resources from the community to support the children (The UK’s financial welfare system for example or even the question of global resources).  However I suspect these are a smokescreen.  The real outrage is directed at women claiming ownership of their own fertility rights.  Indeed not having enough or having too many babies is often specifically called ’selfish’ by the less sisterly among us.

These sentiments, the idea of a woman being selfish or of unsound mind hark back to decades of women being considered hysterics and hussies, incapable of making a rational decision about their body.  They are frequently directed at women who opt for home births, for example.  Meanwhile, men may reproduce as responsibly or irresponsibly as they choose and at worse are a ‘cad’ or a ‘player.’  Single mothers struggling to raise their children are pilloried in the Daily Mail/Fox yet the fathers are quickly forgotten.  A woman who abandons her children is an atrocity while a man who does the same is just shrugged away.

The truth is, fertility is a human right.  Why do we reproduce?  As the child-free contingent point out, it is probably illogical.  It’s a poor financial choice, it’s bad for global resources and it is a massive responsibility.  However it is a natural drive.  Even having one baby could be termed selfish, but it is necessary for the continuation of the species and it is something that many women want for reasons which might be instinctive, spiritual and all-encompassing.  It is rarely a choice of pure logic.

What is concerning is that society has repressed our reproductive rights.  It is difficult to survive on one salary with several children.   The US in particular offers little in the way of maternity leave or benefit and mothers are pressed to return to work as soon as possible.  We are effectively slaves as we have sold our freedom to reproduce – we are expected to raise our children in an appropriately consumerist way and this requires a certain level of wealth.  SAHMs are often called lazy, yet they’re doing something perfectly natural and normal – raising their children as generations have done.

Being pro-choice means that you accept a woman has full ownership of her reproductive organs and the way she chooses to use them.  You may not approve of her choices but criticising a woman for having several children or for being too young or too old to have children is as offensive and unpleasant as criticising a woman for having an abortion.  Why do we allow so many others to curtail our choices?  More worryingly, laws are in place to prevent certain kinds of birth in some states.  Though some may consider home birth risky and unassisted birth downright dangerous, if you are pro-choice, surely you accept that a woman may have her reasons for making a choice that you do not approve of and that it is ultimately her absolute right to birth her child however she wants.  There is far wider debate in this sphere.  Whether women should have a choice to smoke or drink alcohol or go abseiling in pregnancy.  Whether women should have a choice to reproduce when under the legal age for sexual intercourse (after all, why do we allow an arbitrary age which changes from region to region to dictate a behaviour encouraged by nature?).  This is why I cannot categorically say I am pro-choice as I do believe an unborn child should be granted certain protections.

I think these questions are worth asking.  Being ‘pro-choice’ is not as simple and as clear cut as it appears.

I hope that this will be the first in a trilogy of posts on alternative education on Shinemama. This one is perhaps the most practical and sticks to the facts, looking at how my family handles home education from day to day. There will be more philosophical thoughts on alternative education coming soon.

I started home educating my two daughters four months ago. A is nine years old (grade 3) and M is six (grade 1). The choice to HE came suddenly and was somewhat pushed onto us after difficulties at school.

We suspected this might happen and had our ‘plan’ mostly worked out, but it was still a big plunge into the unknown, and like opting for a home birth, it felt like a maverick move. Surely education, like birth must be handled by professionals.

Well, the first thing we did was discuss it with the children. I wanted them to be fully involved in the decision-making (and they were both certain they would prefer home schooling). Legally and technically speaking, home schooling is simple in California. There is a small amount of paperwork to fill out and file and then you can call yourself a private school. There must be a curriculum and attendance records must be kept but the curriculum can cover whatever the educator chooses. There are other options such as enrolling in a charter school or in ‘CAVA’ the Californian Virtual Academy, an online public school.

We opted for the K12 computer-based curriculum. CAVA also uses K12 and provides not only free access to K12 but also free computers for your children. However it comes with the drawback that you must answer to a supervising teacher. We felt we needed a little more space than that to ‘deschool’ the girls and figure out their needs.

I love the theory of unschooling and learning from life experiences, but I think within unschooling, children will still choose to learn about certain topics which will require reading and studying. Therefore, I really don’t have any concerns about providing a structured curriculum to cover the basics. The girls seem to enjoy this style of learning.

Currently, they are both taking Maths, Language Arts (English), History, Science, Art and Music. They are also taking Spanish through the K12 ‘Powerspeak’ add-on, a program which cleverly awards them play money for activities which they can spend on accessories for their avatars. I don’t think the music module is helpful – they learn far more in private piano class, but history, science and art are wonderful for introducing a huge variety of topics with lovely materials and activities.

Our days are pretty relaxed. The girls go to an outside activity five days a week – riding, gymnastics, dance and piano so that they see other kids and experience other teaching styles. I know there are several home school groups around but we just don’t seem to find time! So many places offer home school classes too. The science museum has excellent ones and private teachers love the fact the children can take classes in the daytime.

At home, we usually spend a couple of hours a day on computer-based classes. Generally we always do maths and English then pick from the other subjects. It’s flexible so we can have a day off or do extra. When we work, I tend to sit on the sofa with M and the laptop. We talk and read and complete activities. A is pretty much autonomous but I don’t want her to feel bored or abandoned so we talk and check in with each other and go over her assessments when she tells me what she learned in each lesson.

I also share the teaching with the other adults in the house. This tends to work out pretty well. We’ve found it has given us all more of an insight into how exactly the children are doing – there are no surprises or unpleasant phone calls from school. We also have a good understanding of their learning styles. Homework had become such a stresspoint for us at school – we only saw half the picture.

The rest of the time, the children play around the house or help out with cooking or shopping. A likes lego, building and science. M likes stories and dressing up. They both read. And read. And read. We’re lucky in San Diego to have so many museums and the zoo on our doorstep. There are always places to go and we never seem to be bored.

We don’t have many rules but I had to lay down a few guidelines. The girls’ computers are restricted so that the girls can only use approved sites during the day. Education City, Mathletics, BBC Schools and so on. No Club Penguin before 5pm! We also had to put a restriction on comic books and ‘Rainbow Fairies’ during ’school hours’ – there are so many other books to choose from.

In reality, our school hours are very flexible. We tend to sleep in and stay up later. This leaves evenings free for guilt-free dinner out or activities like laser quest. There’s none of the ’school night’ worry. Lessons are fairly short so we fit them around our activities.

There is a downside to HE. Sometimes I would love more time to myself and I wonder what the future holds. Ideally, I suppose I would like to have work based at home so I can both work and HE. The issues which I thought would worry me most have worked themselves out though. Socialisation is no problem – we seem to be out and about more than ever. The girls insist they have no wish to return to school.

I was concerned about keeping up with grade levels but it amazes me how much work we can do in a very short time. I feel M in particular can do more work in a day at home than she did in a week at school. The classes on K12 are very focussed with specific and clear learning objectives. They’re not endless worksheets and repetition. I find the curriculum very thorough too. Occasionally a little too thorough.

M desperately needs one on one attention and when she has it, she can soar but this just wasn’t feasible at school. At home it is no problem.

And what I love is that the children can explore subjects in as much detail as they choose. If something catches their interest, we can pull out books, visit museums and drift off on a flight of adventure to learn more whether it’s cooking or crochet or computer programming or Mandarin!

Overall, it’s been easier than I expected. It’s not for everyone as not everyone wants to be tied to the home like this (sometimes I question whether I do!) but I do think anyone could do it, especially with a good curriculum and teaching guide (such as K12) to help. We have also worked hard (with a little help from the IKEA Trofast shelving system!) to provide an organised, Montessori-influenced environment where the girls have access to materials and activities so that they can explore whatever they choose when they want.

Up there, look twice. That’s a chimpanzee skeleton. And yesterday, I took a trip to the Darwin exhibit at the San Diego Natural History Museum where this little chap was on display. In Darwin’s time, the reigning philosophy was that humans were different from animals. So it goes that humans are created in God’s image.

Later at home, I watched Stephen Fry’s discussion with Craig Ferguson and Fry made the astute observation that if an alien were to watch our behaviour, they would perhaps consider torture, murder and violence to be the worst parts of our nature and our capacity to love and to make love (and I would add, our capacity to nurture our young) would be the most wonderful things. Yet the word ‘fuck’ is considered horrific and shocking, while polite society can talk about torture and murder cheerfully in public (Oh, the traffic was MURDER tonight, darling!) How have we got here, that a description of an act which celebrates our humanity, our aliveness and our ability to reproduce is so obscene?

Really, we simply haven’t moved on from that time Darwin lived in, when humans denied their animalness. To be civilised was to live with rituals and trappings and unnatural appearances. And isn’t this how we still live? In a culture which sees body hair as disgusting? Which sees silicon enhanced breasts as perfect and functional breasts as ‘icky’?

Of course some of these things are mere aesthetics and fairly harmless. And some of our rituals serve very valid purposes whether they be to reduce the spread of disease or to keep our chosen sexual partner from rivals.

But there are those which are actively harmful and serve no valid purpose.

No national medical organisation supports routine circumcision for health purposes. Even the American Association of Pediatrics, a deeply conservative organisation doesn’t recommend it. Outside the USA, national health organisations actively argue against the procedure. The Australian College of Paediatrics describes it as ‘a traumatic procedure performed without anaesthesia to remove a normal functional and protective prepuce [foreskin].’

The British Medical Association “does not believe that parental preference alone constitutes sufficient grounds for performing a surgical procedure on a child unable to express his own view.”

Evidence supporting links to ‘penile cancer’ and HIV reduction is shaky to say the least. Penile cancer is an extremely rare condition which almost invariably affects elderly men. HIV transmission should be prevented with a condom. The difference circumcision makes to either condition is questionable. Compared to the severe risks (including infections, adhesions, penile damage, haemmorhage, sexual dysfunction, psychological trauma) this painful surgical procedure carries and the trauma it causes the newborn, it is fairly clear to see that the cons outweigh the pros. The foreskin is not a loose flap of skin, it is a healthy, functioning tissue.

Circumcision was popularised in the USA with the help of Dr Kellogg.

“A remedy [for masturbation] which is almost always successful in small boys is circumcision…The operation should be performed by a surgeon without administering an anesthetic, as the brief pain attending the operation will have a salutary effect upon the mind…In females, the author has found the application of pure carbolic acid to the clitoris an excellent means of allaying the abnormal excitement. ” — Dr. John Harvey Kellogg

It bought into the puritanical belief that masturbation was unhealthy and wrong. Yet the practice continued to the modern day, with dubious explanations about ‘hygiene’ or ‘health.’ As can be seen universally by the policy of national professional bodies, circumcision serves no such purpose. It is a cultural and social ritual. In fact, one of the most common reasons given by parents opting for circumcision is ‘So he looks like his daddy’ thus perpetuating the cycle.

But to revisit Darwin, the ‘hygiene’ argument is intriguing. Is circumcision just another way of marking ourselves as separate from animals?

Birth is animal. Parenting is animal. The bond with a new baby is instinctive, fuelled by hormones and chemicals. The protective instinct is overwhelming. How powerful is this social conditioning that it overrides that instinct enough to allow the newborn to be removed from the warmth of his mother and strapped down to a cold table and cut in this way.

My question is this. If we are created in God’s image, surely we arrive in this world perfect. Why taint what God has created with our manmade meddling?

I spent a fabulous couple of hours on Saturday with the ladies from Insight Pink, a unique group for women who feel they are transitioning from the period of their twenties and early thirties.

Read what they have to say about me here. (I was very touched by your kind words, ladies. Thank you.)

It was fascinating to learn from them and their experiences, and how we all deal with this process of ‘growing up’ differently. There seems some expectation that by your mid-thirties you’ve figured it all out and are settled, but some of us seem to bounce off in completely new directions!

As Baz Luhrman said:

“The most interesting people I know didn’t know at 22 what they wanted to do with their lives, some of the most interesting 40 year olds I know still don’t.”

There are no ‘rules’ now. Career, relationships, family, housing, travel, leisure, finance are all part of what we probably have to figure out at some time or another as women, yet there is no clear order to do them in or proportions to arrange them in. There is pressure from family, friends, finance and of course our biological clock and sometimes it seems very hard to do the ‘right’ thing because it always seems like something is being neglected.

Fitting babies into this mix can be very daunting and understandably so. Babies come with a whole other set of pressures and responsibilities.

I’m perhaps a little simplistic. I believe that babies always manage to ‘fit in’ somehow. I also think there is far too much pressure to be a perfect parent, to read all the parenting manuals, to establish routines and discipline early on and to always have your baby looking ‘perfect.’ It becomes about ‘active parenting’ which can quite honestly be stifling and stressful for all concerned.

I think you can do an amazing amount of ‘parenting’ by instinct, without actually worrying about ‘parenting’. Your baby’s needs in the beginning are very simple – lots of love, sleep, milk and interaction. Co-sleep and breastfeed and all you need to buy are nappies/diapers and a few clothes. And a sling is invaluable for going out and about. (My experience of complex ‘travel systems’ is that they’re very expensive and the baby outgrows them quickly. My son was already too big for the pram part of one I looked at in a shop when he was three months old! You really can get by with a sling until the baby is old enough for a simple stroller.)

This type of parenting is called attachment parenting. Demand feeding is a key part of this, so you keep your baby with you in the early weeks so that he (or she) can feed when he needs to. I actually found demand feeding very liberating. There’s no watching the clock, screaming babies or worrying, you just settle for a feed as soon as your baby shows signs of wanting one. You also don’t run into the problem of not being able to go out because it’s naptime – you just take baby with you and let him sleep in the sling.

A big secret of attachment parenting is that keeping your baby close to you releases the hormones which keep your milk supply plentiful and having each other close by and smelling one another is reassuring and good for the mental and physical health of both you and your baby. (There’s a reason nature made babies’ heads smell so yummy!)

Anyway, do take a look at Insight Pink’s blog. They’re a fascinating, smart, articulate group of ladies and true Shinemamas-to-be!

And if you would like me to come and spread a little SHINE by talking to your group or organisation, drop me an email!

M is six. She is a happy little girl who adores ballet and fairies and wishes she could fly. She dances everywhere and likes to hold hands with the teacher. She loves maths, science and her reading age is well above her grade level. So much the better for reading about fairies. If she’s allowed, she likes to work for hours at a computer game, finding all the tricks, secrets and making sure she’s explored every nook and cranny that other people never even notice. She giggles a lot. A LOT. She is a natural clown and loves to make people laugh. She’s always, always angled unusually in photographs.

M’s teacher stopped M’s mother the other day. The same old story. It’s difficult to make her write. It takes a while to get her attention. She doesn’t like sitting straight on her chair. She talks over the teacher. She’s sometimes too loud. It took M a whole day to write one sentence. She was kept in at playtime.

M’s mother recognises this story. When M’s mother was a little girl, she was often removed from classrooms. She remembers spending much of her childhood standing in corridors, unsure why or what went wrong. She remembers that she was always the naughty one. That rumours circulated about her, that parents didn’t like their children being her friend, that teachers would call her names. She never quite knew what she did differently from the other children. It’s just how it was. When M’s mother was a little girl, her doctor said that she was ‘hyperactive.’

Twenty years later, M’s mother is talking to M’s teacher. M’s teacher says M should be ‘tested.’ That she probably has ADHD. That she probably needs ‘medication.’ That if she ‘needs’ medication and won’t take it, then M might have to leave her class and leave the school that she loves.

M’s mother is gutted. M eats well, mostly organic food with minimal additives. She exercises well and she has a happy home life. She also has an older sister who is studious and well liked.

M’s mother is pretty pissed off.

Figures are blurry for how many children are on Ritalin or similar stimulants. Estimates suggest anything up to 8 million children are currently prescribed ADHD medication. At least 90 percent of them are in the USA. Ritalin affects chemicals in a child’s brain linked to impulsivity and ‘hyperactivity.’ The ideal result at the correct dosage is a child who conforms to the needs class.

Only a few weeks ago, M’s mother noticed an advertisement in a magazine for a free trial of Adderall in a parenting magazine. A free trial, like it was chocolate. Or perfume.

Yet a quick look at the professional guidance for Adderall given to doctors is more disturbing. In fact, it carries the following warning:

AMPHETAMINES HAVE A HIGH POTENTIAL FOR ABUSE. ADMINISTRATION OF AMPHETAMINES FOR PROLONGED PERIODS OF TIME MAY LEAD TO DRUG DEPENDENCE AND MUST BE AVOIDED. PARTICULAR ATTENTION SHOULD BE PAID TO THE POSSIBILITY OF SUBJECTS OBTAINING AMPHETAMINES FOR NON-THERAPEUTIC USE OR DISTRIBUTION TO OTHERS, AND THE DRUGS SHOULD BE PRESCRIBED OR DISPENSED SPARINGLY.

MISUSE OF AMPHETAMINE MAY CAUSE SUDDEN DEATH AND SERIOUS CARDIOVASCULAR ADVERSE EVENTS.

The pediatric guidelines read,

“Pediatric Use: Long-term effects of amphetamines in children have not been well established. Amphetamines are not recommended for use in children under 3 years of age with Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder described under INDICATIONS AND USAGE.”

(http://www.drugs.com/pro/adderall.html)

Professional warnings on Ritalin are similarly disturbing.

A study at Columbia University found an increase in sudden death in children who were taking Ritalin. Paediatricians and psychiatrists keen to continue prescribing argued that this was only relevant in children with existing heart abnormalities In 2008, the American Heart Association recommended EKG tests be given to children starting Ritalin, yet this is still not in effect, thanks to those prescribers fighting the recommendation. Even more worryingly, in a recent study published in the American Journal of Psychiatry, the link to sudden death was confirmed once more and in this case, children with any suspicion of heart problems had been removed from the study. Indeed, children on stimulants with no known pre-existing heart issues are five times more likely to die suddenly than other children.

These amphetamine drugs are also known to raise blood pressure, increase heart rate and are known in long term use to retard growth in children. Not to mention the tics and psychosis. Oh, and any long standing prescription for Ritalin or similar may jeapordise a military career.

So. If a doctor says so, M must take one of these drugs to remain at the school.

And let’s be under no illusions, the ADHD industry is huge. The books, the drugs, the remedies. Leon Eisenberg, a professor of psychiatry and social medicine at Harvard Medical School, says that the sale of Ritalin and other stimulant drugs for children are “driven by the convenience of the doctor, the profitability of the drug company, and the notion that there is nothing more meaningful to life than biochemistry”.

M won’t be seeing a doctor. M’s mother wonders why exactly M had to write that sentence that took all day. Whether it was worth staying indoors all day, struggling over. More than anything, she wants M to be happy, to be a pleasant, sociable child. She knows that M is not causing any harm to herself or to anyone else. She just doesn’t conform easily to the classroom rules. Much of it is just about sitting still and concentrating. M doesn’t deserve the same ‘naughty’ label that plagued M’s mother throughout her school years.

And what exactly are the school doing by giving M star charts, pulling her privileges (if play and exercise time can be considered a privilege for a six year old)? They’re using extrinsic forces to force what should be an intrinsic process. In the short term, reward and punishment may make a child conform and obey. They don’t however encourage any love of learning. The child thinks, “I must write because I will get my star and be allowed to play.” Not, “I must write because I want to master this skill and be able to enjoy using it.” In the long term, is the child going to continue writing? No. They will forever be seeking the external motivator and never develop a natural love of learning. (So what if the sentence never gets written! Will the child be a failure in later life? Unlikely.)

Mothering.com describes the Albany Free School, a drug free school where classroom life is individualised. Perhaps in these days of tight budgets, this is a dream but the article quotes Alexander S Neill who argued that the school must fit the child, not the other way round. Classrooms are there to educate children as they are, not to mould the children into ‘educatable’ beings. Surely, if so many millions of children ‘need’ ADHD medication, schools are failing them. They are not providing the education these children need. They are are merely providing a ‘one size fits all’ education. They are buying into our Western tendency to see difference as disorder.

The clue is in the word. Disorder. M refuses to be orderly. To order herself as the school would like.

M’s mother is considering home educating. M would probably thrive if given more autonomy over her learning. Fortunately, this is an option, but it should be an option. Instead, M’s mother feels forced towards this option, as to her, giving M drugs that carry a risk of death and which will change M’s brain chemistry is simply not an option. Even M’s sister says, ‘I like M exactly as she is!’ and M’s family are all in agreement here.

M’s mother believes that M has a very meaningful life. And more to the point, she enjoys her very unusual angles; in photographs, in chairs and in life!

For further reading, Dr Peter Breggin, an experienced Harvard educated psychiatrist has several eye-opening studies here concerning Ritalin, Adderall and Concerta ADHD drugs.

Mothering.com takes the debate one stage further by asking if ADHD actually exists. Shinemama’s feeling? ‘ADHD children’ undoubtedly exist. But they don’t have a disorder. They just have those unusual angles…

To discuss this article, visit our community forum here.

The topic of cosleeping hit the headlines last week once again following a new study published in the British Medical Journal (BMJ article.)

Reports were mixed, with the BBC news using soundbites from FSID to berate parents for ‘ignoring advice’ not to bedshare. Meanwhile, The Telegraph carried the headline, ‘Sharing a bed with a baby does not increase risk of cot death, research shows’.

The Guardian goes one step further to argue that the ’science’ is being badly misinterpreted and used to demonise parents.

So what is the truth? Well, the BMJ study doesn’t tell us much we don’t already know. Their conclusion is as follows:

Many of the SIDS infants had coslept in a hazardous environment. The major influences on risk, regardless of markers for socioeconomic deprivation, are amenable to change and specific advice needs to be given, particularly on use of alcohol or drugs before cosleeping and cosleeping on a sofa.

The problem we have in finding the truth is that none of the big cosleeping studies have separated out those bedsharing safely with their babies (no drugs or alcohol for parents and a safe space for baby, free from pillows and excess covers) from those who have fallen asleep on a sofa, possibly in a drunken or overtired state.

Consistently, studies have found the vast majority of ‘cosleeping’ deaths have been sofa-sleepers, where the baby has been smothered or suffocated whilst sharing a sofa with a parent. These really aren’t true SIDS or cot death cases as there is a clear cause of death. Similarly, we know that smoking and alcohol consumption in parents are linked to incidents of SIDS.

There is no evidence that planned bedsharing is in any way harmful.

What we DO know however is that the original study which FSID quote repeatedly and which was aimed at finding a link to cosleeping and SIDS was funded in a large part by the JPMA – The Juvenile Product Manufacturers’ Association who described themselves:

JPMA is a national trade organization representing 95% of the prenatal to preschool industry. Today, JPMA represents 250 companies in the United States, Canada, and Mexico who manufacture, import and/or distribute infant products such as cribs, car seats, strollers, bedding, and a wide range of accessories and decorative items.

Hardly an uninterested party. Though none of these studies have actually proven any link to bedsharing and SIDS, the party line is still not to bedshare.

Fortunately, a few voices of reason have spoken up. The National Childbirth Trust (NCT) Chief Executive, Belinda Phipps has said, “The findings sound extremely significant. We are really pleased to see that evidence about the safety of co-sleeping is building, because we know it improves breastfeeding rates. We also know a lot of parents prefer to do it but feel guilty because they are unsure about the risks”. (The Telegraph, 2009)

Similarly, Dr Peter Blair from UNICEF has said, “This study shows that it is not co-sleeping that is unsafe, but the circumstances under which some parents co-sleep that create risks”.

So why is this so important to parents?

Well, we know that half of parents bedshare at least once in the first six months. A quarter of parents bedshare regularly. Many are made to feel guilty about it. This guilt is mired in the belief of FSID that it is better to tell parents never to cosleep at all rather than expect them to understand a few common sense precautions. Yet this sledgehammer approach is dangerous because bedsharing carries considerable, known benefits.

• Bedsharing supports the breastfeeding relationship between mother and infant. Mothers who bedshare are more likely to feed on demand and continue feeding for longer. Proximity of the baby helps the mother produce prolactin which keeps milk supply high.
• Bedsharing is comforting, normal and natural. Most other cultures outside the US and UK bedshare, many with very low incidences of SIDS. The practice was discouraged by the Victorians. Babies aren’t designed to be alone.
• It’s easy! No getting out of bed to fetch and feed the baby.
• It’s safe. Feeding then falling asleep on the sofa isn’t.
• There is evidence bedsharing can help regulate the baby’s breathing, temperature and heart rate as well as reduce stress hormones.
• It may mean a much better night’s sleep for mum and baby. A known factor in decreasing postnatal depression.
• A secure baby with a close maternal attachment is likely to not suffer separation anxiety, so is more likely be a secure, independent, happy child.

Deborah Jackson’s book Three in a Bed was a groundbreaking book on the benefits of bedsharing. It’s a great read for parents wanting to know more on the subject. I am a strong believer in bedsharing and am sharing with #3. #1 and #2 moved on to their own bed cheerfully when they were ready.

There are just a few common sense guidelines:

• Avoid drinking, drugs or cigarettes if you are bedsharing.
• Make a safe space for the baby… no pillows or excess covers, no cracks they can get wedged in.
• Don’t cosleep on the sofa

Is there anything nicer than seeing your baby’s face grinning back at you when you wake up?

I came across the term heuristic play this evening, a phrase coined in the book ‘People Under Three’ by Elinor Goldschmied & Sonia Jackson. Heuristic comes from the Greek word ‘heuriskein’ meaning to discover.

In the book, heuristic play refers to a specific period of time when a group of young children are offered a large basket of objects to explore, experience and play with. It is a social concept which sees several babies or toddlers delving into a big basket to find the hidden treasures within. Ideally, these include a wide range of sensorial items, many of which are everyday objects from around the house.

Of course, this activity taps into some very natural baby and toddler behaviour. Babies love to explore cupboards, delve into boxes and rummage with everything from the pots and pans to the sewing basket. Some of these items are more appropriate than others! What I often notice is how babies seem to gravitate towards the most commonly used artifacts in the house. The tv remote control, their sibling’s favourite doll, the telephone, a favourite make-up item or a wooden spoon. Those items which are fetishised by the household, put in prized places and used on a daily basis. I imagine that in times gone by, the conch shell would have been as attractive to the cave-infant as the telephone is to the 21st century baby!

While I love the social idea of the treasure basket, particularly for older toddlers who are starting to engage in parallel play (playing alongside one another on individual activities), I believe this is also an absorbing and exciting activity for younger babies to explore individually. Practitioners recommend that parents observe quietly, but don’t interfere, and that the number of items for younger babies is fewer, allowing them to take their time exploring each object.

Of course, babies explore with their mouths so treasure objects should be chewable and safe – wooden spoons, pastry brushes, plastic cookie cutters, bunches of keys are all perfect. Ideally, I would suggest there should be plenty of natural objects – not only are they more aesthetically pleasing, they are fascinating to the baby – think of the patterns of wood or marble. They also engage all the senses – the different textures of wood, the faint taste of the sea on a large shell or the smell of a piece of leather.

Practitioners also suggest this activity should be limited to a set amount of discovery time at occasional, supervised periods during the week. This prevents boredom with the objects and keeps the discovery period exciting and fun. Of course, it’s also a lovely time to spend bonding with your baby, observing how he or she learns and explores the world around them, absorbing these miniature representations of their environment, of their world.

Although.. you could just let them bash around with the pots and pans and rummage in the cupboard…

Senses – leather for smell, sponge, shells

BLW is the new buzzword in baby feeding in the UK and it’s slowly starting to catch on in the US. Elsewhere in the world, parents have been BLWing as long as anyone can remember.

My first two babies were raised on jars of mush. Pear and apple mush, sweet potato and carrot mush, fruity yoghurt mush. Lots of mush, warmed slightly and fed with a spoon. Messy and mushy.

This time round, I walked down the baby food aisles and saw Gerber, Gerber, Gerber (owned by Nestle for the politically or ethically inclined) .

The funny thing is, according to BLW champion, Gill Rapley, no research has ever actually been done to suggest weaning babies in stages (puree, then small lumps, then bigger lumps) is developmentally beneficial to babies. It’s just the accepted way of doing things. It’s how it’s done. Yet we’ve all seen the baby confused by the introduction of ‘lumps’ – the thbpt, thbpt, thbpt as spat out bits of macaroni or peas fly across the kitchen.

So what’s the alternative? Well, it’s surprisingly simple… and it doesn’t involve blenders, ice cube trays or mixing up special recipes. Your baby is cleverer than you think! Around the age of 6 months, they’ll let you know what to do as they make a grab for your broccoli or your cheese sandwich.

‘But they’ll choke!’ Well… no, they may gag a bit initially, but choking is rare. And after all, baby will need to figure out solid food before they hit college, so now is as good a time as any! Really? Really! The theory of BLW goes that actually, the baby has a great gag reflex – much further forward than older children. This gag reflex makes them spit out the food pretty sharpish if it goes down the wrong way.

The benefits of BLW are right up there – first of all, you can enjoy a meal with your baby! Leave off the salt and they can share your pasta, your fruit salad, a sweet potato fry. Secondly, it is normal – this is how a baby learns! Why do babies put everything in their mouth? Well, to see if it’s edible. Why would nature do this if they couldn’t possibly handle food?

More significantly, BLW introduces babies to food, rather than mush. The baby quickly becomes dextrous enough to handle a strawberry, a piece of mango or a broccoli floret. They study the shape, colour, size and take the time to explore it before chewing it. Their pincer grip develops with their capacity to eat small things and they grow up familiar with making good food choices. Also, when the baby is offered several foods, they will opt for the food that is right for them, rather than licking up indistinguishable mush.

Think about it, would you like to have that shoved into your mouth, without being able to examine, identify or savour what you are eating? The BLW baby will really have the chance to enjoy their food.

Personally, I was doubtful at first. I heard the grave warnings from doubters, but when I looked at who was funding these doubters, some of my fears were alleviated. When I saw the UK’s National Health Service recommends finger foods from 6 months, I was even more assured. So I tried it. Well, my baby tried it. We were at a buffet in Las Vegas and he started grabbing my food. So with a chunk of watermelon, a chunk of cantaloupe and a strawberry, he sat there, examining them, then giving them a suck. Gradually, over the coming weeks, he started to try other foods – lots of fruit, pasta, cheese, then crunchy things like toast, even a little cake. Homemade blueberry pancakes were a quick favourite! And how wonderful to be able to go to a restaurant and offer him some noodles or a piece of bread and butter.

Baby led weaning is such a delightful experience, and such a journey. The ‘rules’ are simple:

• Keep salt intake minimal
• Don’t wean until the baby shows readiness to eat solids (World Health Organisation suggests 6 months, and certainly no solids before 4 months)
• Be careful of foods that are hard and difficult to chew – apples, carrots etc. should be steamed, cooked or grated. Grapes, peanuts etc. are an obvious choking hazard due to their size and shape.
• Babies should eat sitting upright, not leaning back
• No ‘posting’ food into their mouths. Offer the baby food on a tray or a blanket and allow them to choose and explore the food in their own time. If they are not interested, then that’s ok. There’s no rush to get them onto solid food. Take your time! And let the baby take his or her time!

One great tip is to make everything into a manageable size and shape – broccoli for example should have the stem kept on to act as a handle. Crinkle cutters could be used to make mango sticks more graspable.

Good luck if you decide to BLW. It really is the easiest option. And probably the most fun! (although I can’t guarantee it’s any less messy!)

6-7 month old baby Sid enjoying figs, strawberries, banana and noodles!

More information about baby led weaning can be found here:

Or buy Gill Rapley’s book, ‘Baby Led Weaning’

Disclaimer: I am not a doctor. Consult your health care provider for their recommendations about feeding your baby.