[beck12]

Paternal Skin-to-Skin Contact Offers Cesarean-Born Baby Same Calming & Development Benefits As Mom

Early skin-to-skin contact between a mother and her baby may need to be limited for practical and medical safety reasons. “After births with complications, mothers are often not available to their babies for contact,” says principal author Kerstin Erlandsson. “Babies who do not have that contact take longer to settle and may lag in learning to breastfeed.” Erlandsson’s study shows that a father can soothe his newborn as effectively as a mother, and more effectively than if the baby is placed in a crib during the first two hours after birth.

Do you think your Dh/SO would do this? I have never heard of it - but think it makes sense & sounds great!

[Tersh]

It makes sense and I think it's a great idea. I have to say though, I read a lot that women can't hold their babies for a while after the c-section and I don't really understand that. I have had an emerg. c-section and and after that, I couldn't really hold her as I had a high block (epidural froze everything up to my eyes). They could have placed her on me though. I had an elective with my second and I was holding him within 20 minutes. How early is "early" contact?

[Jess is Write]

We definitely experienced a lag in learning to breastfeed. I really wish they would have just given him to DH and let them settle down somewhere together. Instead they took him to the nursery and kept him in there until I was out of recovery.

[brui77]

I was actually reading about a study that somewhat relates to this. It was done in the 1950's by a guy named Harry F. Harlow. I'll see if I can find the link about it because I'm not sure I can explain it the right way.

Basically, he did this study with infant monkeys that were kept in cages with two dolls. One of the dolls was covered with a terry cloth (i.e. a soft doll), and the other was made of just plain wire. The monkeys all received their milk from a nipple placed at breast height in one of the dolls. Half of the monkeys got their milk from the wire doll, and the other half got it from the terry cloth doll. The point of the experiment was to see whether the monkeys that got their milk from the wire doll would show an inclination to 'cuddle' with that doll/use it as a security object, even though it wasn't very soft/comforting. (Researchers had previously noticed that infant monkeys spend a lot of time cuddling with blankets and other soft objects that are left in their cages and tend to use them as security objects, almost like infant humans do).

The results showed that all of the monkeys spent the same amount of time (and a significant amount of time) cuddling with the terry cloth doll, regardless of where their milk came from.

The way that this study was explained to me is that the doll that the milk comes from represents the monkey's mother, and the doll with no milk represents the monkey's father. In other words, the monkeys were just as happy to cuddle/bond with the 'father' (the non-milk producing parents) as long as he was sufficiently 'cuddly' -- milk wasn't a pre-condition to bonding. The results were supposed to help discount gender stereotypes and show that it was just as important/possible for fathers to bond strongly with their infants in the first few days of life as it was for mothers.

Hope I explained that the right way. Off to find a link that might explain it better....

[aussiemummy]

I didn't have a c section but my friend did. She wasn't able to hold her baby for hours after she was born. And the father wanted to take the baby but the nurse said they'd rather the baby go to the nursey.

[Keskes]

Originally Posted by Tersh

It makes sense and I think it's a great idea. I have to say though, I read a lot that women can't hold their babies for a while after the c-section and I don't really understand that. I have had an emerg. c-section and and after that, I couldn't really hold her as I had a high block (epidural froze everything up to my eyes). They could have placed her on me though. I had an elective with my second and I was holding him within 20 minutes. How early is "early" contact?

Sometimes C-sections are performed because the infant is in distress. Under those circumstances, they prefer to take the babies to the NICU or the nursery for closer observation for a short time.

Also, women have completely different C-section experiences. I was given morphine during my C-section, and when it was over I was so sleepy and weak from the medication that I could not hold my daughter safely even if they'd have let me. I could barely get from the operating bed to my recovery bed. I was pretty much unconscious. And then don't usually place the baby just ON the mother, because if the mother can't hold the baby the baby can easily fall. I suppose the nurse could hold the baby in place for the mother, but I think that generally they have other things to do. =/

DH cuddled with DD as soon as they let him, which was about an hour after she was born.

[Tersh]

You don't necessarily need to "hold" the baby. Even when they brought me my DD, I was still woozy and couldn't move my arms that well. They placed her on my chest and tucked the bed sheet on either side of my body. She was snugged in there, I didn't really need my arms to hold her. They just said "when you want to sleep, call us and we'll take her off."

[Keskes]

Ah. The nurses I had wouldn't let me old her until I was awake enough to do so. Of course, they also freaked out on us when DH walked out of the hospital room with newborn DS in his arms - to get a nurse. We weren't allowed to carry him in the hallways - we could only push him in the little bassinet thing.

[irishxrose]

Originally Posted by brui77

The way that this study was explained to me is that the doll that the milk comes from represents the monkey's mother, and the doll with no milk represents the monkey's father. In other words, the monkeys were just as happy to cuddle/bond with the 'father' (the non-milk producing parents) as long as he was sufficiently 'cuddly' -- milk wasn't a pre-condition to bonding. The results were supposed to help discount gender stereotypes and show that it was just as important/possible for fathers to bond strongly with their infants in the first few days of life as it was for mothers.

Harlow's attachment study was groundbreaking. Before Harlow's studies (and other theories that were developed and proven), it was assumed that because your mother fed you, that would impact you and how you developed, and how you attached to caregivers - and in many cases parental affection was considered not important. It was essentially assumed that food = security and comfort. It's also important to remember that the prevailing view for a very long time was that affection towards children could actually negatively affect a child (psychologically, and it was believed parental affection even led to disease!) - instead of positively, as newer research as shown. But anyway, that's why Harlow's experiments were so important. The way it was explained to you is interesting, in my psychology classes it was never referred to that way - it was only about attachment in general, and how attachment could affect monkeys (much like children), nothing to do with gender. It was essentially what was more important, food or security and what was the impact on development? The contact comfort variable overwhelmed every other variables and surprised the crap out of everyone - the monkeys found security in the cloth mothers, and spent the vast majority of the day with the cloth mother - while spending less than an hour with the wire mother who had food. I've never heard of the gender aspect, but Harlow's results can certainly be interpreted that way!

For those who are interested -
Here are a few videos on Harlow:
YouTube - Food or Security? Harlow's study on monkeys' attachment
YouTube - Harlow's Rhesus Monkey Experiments and the meaning of Love

About Harlow:
Psychology History
Harry Harlow and the Nature of Love - Classic Studies in Psychology

About attachment theory in general
YouTube - Attachment Theory

Ahem.

To the OP, DH would certainly do this. I would much prefer DH hold the child instead of taking the baby to the nursery and let them sit there in a plastic bassinet with very little human contact.

[Wolfmama09]

I didn't have a c-section. I had post preeclampsia. My blood pressure skyrocketed after delivery so I was givenmagnesium as soon as DS was out. They said the medicine would cause me to get shaky. I didn't get to hold DS until the next MORNING. DF was there and he wasn't allowed to get him either, they preferred him to go to the nursery.

[Keskes]

I really don't understand why the hospital policy is that dad can't hold the infant. Are they afraid the infant will bond to dad and not mom? I mean, that's a lot like what happens in birds and puppies.. the first person to spend the most time with them is "mom" basically. But I don't think it applies to humans. Do they not think dads know how to hold babies? I just don't understand the policy.

[Tersh]

Originally Posted by Keskes

Ah. The nurses I had wouldn't let me old her until I was awake enough to do so. Of course, they also freaked out on us when DH walked out of the hospital room with newborn DS in his arms - to get a nurse. We weren't allowed to carry him in the hallways - we could only push him in the little bassinet thing.

^THAT is MY hot button issue. That made me sob uncontrollably in the hospital. I had been up for three days, straight, and spent the previous 25 hours trying to breastfeed my DD who wouldn't latch and when she did, she would promptly fall asleep. I needed to get out of my room and BAD. I wanted to hold her, not push her in the stupid bassinette, but they came and told me to go back to my room. I felt like I was being scolded, holding MY OWN baby. I started sobbing, called the head nurse and asked to be discharged. We also got in trouble because DH tried to take DD off the ward to meet his relatives from Scotland (they were not allowed on my ward). He was told he could not take his own baby off the ward. Pardon?!

I hated my entire birthing experience almost exclusively because of the hospital policies and staff.

[Jarheadwed]

Why would they prefer the baby go to the nursery and not the dad, did they give any reason? I wouldn't be happy about that at all.

[blondie-lox]

My DF would absolutely do skin to skin with any more children directly after they are born if I have another C Section. He said he will with our next child.

I think it is really strange that so many fathers aren't able to hold their babies right away and keep them with them while mother is healing or unable to hold the baby. I had a C Section with both my children. My last C Section within 10minutes of my son being "out" DF got to hold him. I was still being stitched up and DF was holding my newborn right by my face. I was stitched up in 30minutes and was immediately brought to recovery. As soon as I got to recovery I was handed DS to immediately nurse. He was maybe 45minutes old and I was holding him and nursing. DS never left my sight during my hospital stay of 3 days, except for once when he was taken into the hallway directly outside my room to be bathed after 24hrs and DF was standing with him the whole time. I was allowed to hold my son whenever and so was DF. I think it's sad so many father's didn't get to be with their newborns while moms were healing.

[beck12]

Originally Posted by Jarheadwed

Why would they prefer the baby go to the nursery and not the dad, did they give any reason? I wouldn't be happy about that at all.

I don't get it either. While I was held back being stitched back up (which took FOREVER) Dh was in our room holding Ds. I was actually jealous because by the time I got there, he & my niece had taken turns holding the baby, popping photos, etc...LOL Don't get me wrong, I held him after delivery & nursed him already. I just couldn't believe that while i was getting treated like a roll of bread dough being punched down & getting stitched up, they were lounging in our room kissing on the baby.

[brui77]

Originally Posted by irishxrose

Harlow's attachment study was groundbreaking. Before Harlow's studies (and other theories that were developed and proven), it was assumed that because your mother fed you, that would impact you and how you developed, and how you attached to caregivers - and in many cases parental affection was considered not important. It was essentially assumed that food = security and comfort. It's also important to remember that the prevailing view for a very long time was that affection towards children could actually negatively affect a child (psychologically, and it was believed parental affection even led to disease!) - instead of positively, as newer research as shown. But anyway, that's why Harlow's experiments were so important. The way it was explained to you is interesting, in my psychology classes it was never referred to that way - it was only about attachment in general, and how attachment could affect monkeys (much like children), nothing to do with gender. It was essentially what was more important, food or security and what was the impact on development? The contact comfort variable overwhelmed every other variables and surprised the crap out of everyone - the monkeys found security in the cloth mothers, and spent the vast majority of the day with the cloth mother - while spending less than an hour with the wire mother who had food. I've never heard of the gender aspect, but Harlow's results can certainly be interpreted that way!

For those who are interested -
Here are a few videos on Harlow:
YouTube - Food or Security? Harlow's study on monkeys' attachment
YouTube - Harlow's Rhesus Monkey Experiments and the meaning of Love

About Harlow:
Psychology History
Harry Harlow and the Nature of Love - Classic Studies in Psychology

About attachment theory in general
YouTube - Attachment Theory

Ahem.

Hooray! I am so glad that someone besides me has actually heard of this study and doesn't think I'm crazy. Andrika, the place that I read about this was actually in a book on the history of midwifing in America. I think that the author is an ultra-feminist sociologist, so that's probably why she interpreted the results the way she did.

To the more general question of why doctors sometimes don't let dads hold the baby post C-section: I think that doctors generally are just people who like to have things arranged in neat, organized boxes. (I hope I don't offend anyone by saying this). It's not that having all of the babies in the nursery is necessarily better for the baby or the family, it's just easier for them (the doctors) to keep track of things that way. They're quintessential bureaucrats -- they have a procedure, and they want that procedure to be followed regardless of individual circumstance.

But yes, it's dumb. If I had to have a C-section for any reason, I trust that my husband would insist on getting as much bonding time as possible with the baby in the aftermath.

[TheOtherMichelle]

Was Harlow also the one who showed that monkeys deprived of the opportunity to bond early in life grew up to be extremely anti-social, and maybe even violent? It's been a long time since I read that.

All I could think about when I read this topic was a comment someone made in my birthing class. The teacher was telling us about the benefit of skin to skin contact, no matter who was holding the baby, and one of the expectant fathers chimed in, "what about skin to hair?" lol

[Fallen2Love]

Not to veer off topic but that is my main gripe about hospital birth's and why I want to avoid one w/ future kids.

Of course the nursery staff even in vaginal delivery's would prefer the baby be in the nursery. God forbid a mom/dad could care for their child :eye roll: Hey, if mom and dad want the baby, you have less work to do - think about it that way for once! As long as baby is healthy and not in distress you know, fair game?

[Keskes]

My baby was allowed to stay with me as long as I wanted after I was able to hold her. I did send her to the nursery usually to sleep, because I needed a nap. She'd wake up there and get some cuddles, and if she was hungry they brought her back to me. Otherwise they just held her for a while to "give mom a break." There was even a sign on her little plastic rolling bed that said "no bottles."

[Tersh]

My hospital stay didn't seem to endorse the 'give mom a break' rule. Your baby, you take care of him. Even my aunt, who had twins at the same hospital 23 years ago, was told "no, we do not take the babies to allow mom to have a break. They are, after all, your babies."