attachment parenting
Find a Conversation
| Mon, 08-14-2006 - 3:17pm |
A woman I know (I used to work with her dh) practices "attachment parenting". Here is a definition (for those who don't know what it is):
"Attachment Parenting includes respecting your child's needs, feeding on demand, and answering your baby's cries. Other parts of Attachment Parenting include co-sleeping, nursing on demand, sling or other baby carrier wearing, and cloth diapering. Not all Attachment Parents practice all of the above, but never the less love the idea of Attachment Parenting and comforting their children.
Attachment parenting uses mild discipline methods and avoids all physical or emotional punishment, such as inflicting shame on a child for inappropriate behavior. Children are encouraged and allowed to sleep with their parents, and you treat your bed as the family bed. Meeting your child's needs according to the child's time frame during the early years of development is an essential part of attachment parenting. Children will be allowed to grow and learn at their own pace and not according to standard time frames."
What do you all think of attachment parenting?
I don't see attachment parenting as something a WOH parent could do, or could they? What do u think?
I am also curious to see if SAHPs vs/ WOHPs will have different opionions on this topic.
If anyone here practices attachment parenting - was your decision to do so closely linked with your decision to be a SAHP?
josee

Pages
<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" />
I know I stated this repeatedly, but you do know I am talking about US mothers as a whole? NOt the 2 boroughs you keep bringing up. I hate to break the news to you but the Bronx and Brooklyn are not representative of the US as a whole.
Where are your stats that there are more than %3 of mothers on drugs?
Corn syrup for one in many types. All sorts of processed 'stuff' in others:
Formula Sold in the USA
In so far as we know, there has been no study of quantities of neurotoxic amino acids (glutamic acid, aspartic acid, and L-cysteine) present in infant formula sold in the USA. So we picked four cans of formula off our grocer's shelves to illustrate the fact that formula sold in the USA has its share of MSG-containing ingredients. (Ingredients known to contain MSG or create MSG during processing are shown in bold. L-cysteine is noted because it, like glutamic acid and aspartic acid, is a neurotoxic amino acid.)
TABLE 5
Ingredients in infant formula sold in the USA
Nestle Carnation Good Start (Easy to Digest Comfort proteins) Water, enzymatically hydrolyzed reduced minerals, whey protein concentrate (from cows' milk), vegetable oils (palm olein, soy, coconut, high-oleic safflower), lactose, corn maltodextrin....
Enfamil Nutramigen Hypoallergenic Formula Water, corn syrup solids....casein hydrolysate, modified corn starch...carrageenan, L-cysteine....
Ross Isomil Soy Formula with Iron Water, corn syrup, sugar, soy protein isolate...modified cornstarch...carrageenan....
MeadJohnson Enfamil with Iron Reduced minerals, whey, nonfat milk...carrageenan...
SUMMARY
The Canadian Study leaves no doubt that ingredients that contain processed free glutamic acid (MSG) and free aspartic acid -- known neurotoxins -- are used in baby formula. The fact that neurotoxins are present in baby formula is of particular concern because the blood brain barrier is never fully developed in infants, allowing neurotoxins more accessibility to the brain then would be the case in healthy adults.
The amounts of aspartic acid and glutamic acid found in the formulas analyzed in the Canadian Study have been listed separately in the above schedules. However, in studies using experimental animals, neuroscientists have found that glutamic acid and aspartic acid load on the same receptors in the brain, cause identical brain lesions and neuroendocrine disorders, and act in an additive fashion.
You will note that the level of neurotoxins found in the hypoallergenic formula was greater than the level of neurotoxins found in the other formulas. In reviewing the literature on hypoallergenic formulas, we found short term studies that concluded that hypoallergenic formulas are safe because babies tolerated them and gained weight. However, we have not seen any long term studies on the safety of hypoallergenic formulas. We believe that well designed long term studies would demonstrate that infants raised on hypoallergenic formulas, as compared to infants who are breast fed or fed on non-hypoallergenic formulas, will exhibit more learning disabilities at school age, and/or will exhibit more endocrine disorders such as obesity and reproductive disorders later in life. Long term studies on the effects of hypoallergenic formulas need to be done.
To put these figures in perspective, consider that in an FDA sponsored study dated July, 1992 entitled "Safety of Amino Acids Used in Dietary Supplements," the Federation of American Societies for Experimental Biology concluded, in part, that:
"...it is prudent to avoid the use of dietary supplements of L-glutamic acid by pregnant women, infants, and children.... and...by women of childbearing age and individuals with affective disorders." (MSG is called glutamic acid when used in supplements.)
Consider, also, that a press release dated May 27, 1999, which discussed the European Commission marketing authorization for RotaShield(R) Rotavirus Vaccine stated, in part,
"RotaShield(R) should not be given to infants who are hypersensitive to latex or ... or monosodium glutamate."
Shortly after its introduction, RotaShield(R) Rotavirus Vaccine was taken off the market.
"I know I stated this repeatedly, but you do know I am talking about US mothers as a whole? NOt the 2 boroughs you keep bringing up. I hate to break the news to you but the Bronx and Brooklyn are not representative of the US as a whole."
Sigh. I know that the Bronx and Brooklyn are not representative of the US as a whole. And I hate to keep stating this repeatedly. But, not *all* BM is better than formula. That's all that I am saying. When you have areas like these, (and I'm sure there are areas like these all over the country), the babies are much better off on formula.
Exactly. That 3% are probably the ones who have been admitted to rehabilitation centers. I hardly think that Jane Doe on the corner buying crack who was never in a treatment center is counted in that percentage. Or Mary Smith who has a cocaine habit and sits privately in her home taking it up her nose would not be counted also.
Is there a hotline where one can call so that one can admit they are a drug addict and want to be included in the statistic?
Pages