Hi Carol,
>okay, so somebody show me some great scientific studies proving that a bath
>is really crucial, and if so, then why aren't all those dirty babies in
>heather's part of the world suffering terribly?

Just to confirm what Heather is saying, my baby only had a bath in
hospital because she was covered in meconium (passed it as she was
born), but even so, it wasn't until the next day. In the meantime a
"lick and a promise" (ie a perfunctory wipe with a wet cloth) had to
suffice. Most of the babies in the hospital at the time didn't have a
bath at all.

My next two babies were born at home. One was admitted to hospital at 5
days old, having never been bathed and finally had a bath in SCBU at 10
days old, mainly to wash off the iodine and blood from the numerous
tests she'd had to endure (a student nanny did it for me, because she
needed the practice!). The second was bathed at about 2 weeks old
because I had had to lie to my mother, who thought that this was a sign
of a neglectful mother!

My midwives told me that newborn babies should only be bathed in plain
warm water, they did *not* need a bath every day and vernix was nature's
moisturiser. They were ordinary, NHS midwives, so I assume what I was
told was the "party line".

I have to confess to reading about some of these practices of bathing
and seperation from the mother with absolute horror, and the feeling
that I haven't heard of such things since the 1970s in UK. It must take
a lot more staff than the British practice of getting the mother to do
all the work wherever possible.
--
Anna H.
mailto: [log in to unmask]
http://www.ratbag.demon.co.uk/anna/

             ***********************************************
The LACTNET mailing list is powered by L-Soft's renowned
LISTSERV(R) list management software together with L-Soft's LSMTP(TM)
mailer for lightning fast mail delivery. For more information, go to:
http://www.lsoft.com/LISTSERV-powered.html