THE HIGH COST OF BABIES
[To the Editor of the SPECTATOR.]
Sm,—Mrs. Davies rightly considers that a baby's advent into this troublesome world should receive more specializedl attention than it did fifty years ago ; but could not some of the expense which this appears to mean be reduced if instead of seeking all their help from the obstetrical specialist and the highly-trained nurse, the laity took the trouble to become, more knowledgeable in these matters themselves ? In this way they would be able to dispense with some of the nursing— its quantity, not its quality—and would be capable of choosing a family practitioner whom they could trust, and who could; study their income as the specialist cannot. Parents may be a very poor and imperfect institution of Nature, but as far as we can see they have come to stay ; and although no animal; so badly mismanages its young as Man, yet the more we take: the responsibility of the early days of life out of the parents" hands, the more expensive and the more deplorable the con- dition becomes. To take one instance alone—that of incorrect. feeding in the first month—whether it is the homely body who: gives the baby a drop every time he cries, or the highly, trained nurse who insists on four-hourly feeds from the first, the mistake lies primarily with the mother. The mother should make herself responsible for baby's feeding from the very first ; as she should, to a great extent, for ante-natal care of herself.
The care of one mother and one baby need not occupy the; whole of one nurse's time for a whole month, and the average: middle-class mother could save herself much expense if she would use the services of the district nursing associations,, whose midwives hold a very high record of work.—I am, Sir,
&c., HETTY SCOTT,
Previous page
