Preparing sibling for birth process?

On Mon, 24 Mar 2008 21:24:03 -0400, Ericka Kammerer
wrote:

toypup wrote:



It just occurs to me that if it can be
traumatic for a grown man, it can be traumatic to a young child who
doesn't quite comprehend everything that is going on. Yes, it could be
that it is not a traumatic but a very enriching experience; but if it is
a traumatic experience, that experience cannot be erased.

But it's very rare that the situation flips instantaneously
from fine to traumatic. There's usually plenty of warning for
the responsible adult to take the child off somewhere else. Also,
people self-select into this situation. The parent of a child
likely to struggle with a normal birth isn't likely to look into
this option.

I'm not toypup and I could be wrong, but I'm reading her post to say
that even a "normal" birth can be a traumatic experience for the
child. In my situation I knew E was pretty sensitive so we decided
not to include her. To this day she still says she has no intention
of ever having a baby and she didn't see the birth. Although she knew
what happened to me a week later when my wound eviscerated and she's
afraid of that.

Nan

"Nan" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 24 Mar 2008 21:24:03 -0400, Ericka Kammerer
wrote:

toypup wrote:



It just occurs to me that if it can be
traumatic for a grown man, it can be traumatic to a young child who
doesn't quite comprehend everything that is going on. Yes, it could be
that it is not a traumatic but a very enriching experience; but if it is
a traumatic experience, that experience cannot be erased.

But it's very rare that the situation flips instantaneously
from fine to traumatic. There's usually plenty of warning for
the responsible adult to take the child off somewhere else. Also,
people self-select into this situation. The parent of a child
likely to struggle with a normal birth isn't likely to look into
this option.

I'm not toypup and I could be wrong, but I'm reading her post to say
that even a "normal" birth can be a traumatic experience for the
child. In my situation I knew E was pretty sensitive so we decided
not to include her. To this day she still says she has no intention
of ever having a baby and she didn't see the birth. Although she knew
what happened to me a week later when my wound eviscerated and she's
afraid of that.

That's how I read it too.
I know I'm not good on the sight of blood, and images can play back in my
head for years. I certainly think the amount of blood I produced during
birth (and I didn't produce much last time round) would have caused me
problems as an observer now, and worse when I was a child.
Debbie

On Mar 24, 3:01�pm, Puester wrote:


Birth is a messy medical procedure no matter how much we
women choose to glorify it. �My husband was present for both
my births but I suspect he, an engineer, would have been
much less at ease if he didn't have the fetal monitor
display to play with. �I watched my daughter give birth and
it was difficult for me to watch, emotionally.

There we'll have to differ. I don't consider birth to be inherently a
medical procedure any more than sexual intercourse is. I'm actually
very jealous of my husband that he saw our babies born and I didn't.

--Helen

Nan wrote:
On Mon, 24 Mar 2008 21:24:03 -0400, Ericka Kammerer
wrote:

toypup wrote:


It just occurs to me that if it can be
traumatic for a grown man, it can be traumatic to a young child who
doesn't quite comprehend everything that is going on. Yes, it could be
that it is not a traumatic but a very enriching experience; but if it is
a traumatic experience, that experience cannot be erased.
But it's very rare that the situation flips instantaneously
from fine to traumatic. There's usually plenty of warning for
the responsible adult to take the child off somewhere else. Also,
people self-select into this situation. The parent of a child
likely to struggle with a normal birth isn't likely to look into
this option.

I'm not toypup and I could be wrong, but I'm reading her post to say
that even a "normal" birth can be a traumatic experience for the
child. In my situation I knew E was pretty sensitive so we decided
not to include her. To this day she still says she has no intention
of ever having a baby and she didn't see the birth. Although she knew
what happened to me a week later when my wound eviscerated and she's
afraid of that.

My point was that a child was only likely to be traumatized
by a normal birth if there was inadequate planning/preparation
(something under the parents' control) or if the mother or child
was uncomfortable with it (typically ascertained in advance, and
easily dealt with in the moment via the assigned adult caretaker
removing the child if things start getting uncomfortable, which
they would long before they reached the traumatic stage).
Again, I wasn't arguing that everyone should choose this
option or that it's a good option for every mother or every child.
I'm arguing that it's not inappropriate in all cases (as some would
have it).

Best wishes,
Ericka

" wrote:

There we'll have to differ. I don't consider birth to be inherently a
medical procedure any more than sexual intercourse is. I'm actually
very jealous of my husband that he saw our babies born and I didn't.

--Helen

I agree. Birth is not a medical procedure unless a c-section is necessary.

On Mar 25, 9:53*am, Ericka Kammerer wrote:
Nan wrote:
On Mon, 24 Mar 2008 21:24:03 -0400, Ericka Kammerer
wrote:

toypup wrote:

*It just occurs to me that if it can be
traumatic for a grown man, it can be traumatic to a young child who
doesn't quite comprehend everything that is going on. *Yes, it could be
that it is not a traumatic but a very enriching experience; but if it is
a traumatic experience, that experience cannot be erased.
* * * *But it's very rare that the situation flips instantaneously
from fine to traumatic. *There's usually plenty of warning for
the responsible adult to take the child off somewhere else. *Also,
people self-select into this situation. *The parent of a child
likely to struggle with a normal birth isn't likely to look into
this option.

I'm not toypup and I could be wrong, but I'm reading her post to say
that even a "normal" birth can be a traumatic experience for the
child. *In my situation I knew E was pretty sensitive so we decided
not to include her. *To this day she still says she has no intention
of ever having a baby and she didn't see the birth. *Although she knew
what happened to me a week later when my wound eviscerated and she's
afraid of that.

* * * * My point was that a child was only likely to be traumatized
by a normal birth if there was inadequate planning/preparation
(something under the parents' control) or if the mother or child
was uncomfortable with it (typically ascertained in advance, and
easily dealt with in the moment via the assigned adult caretaker
removing the child if things start getting uncomfortable, which
they would long before they reached the traumatic stage).
* * * * Again, I wasn't arguing that everyone should choose this
option or that it's a good option for every mother or every child.
I'm arguing that it's not inappropriate in all cases (as some would
have it).

Agreed. It's probably not a good option for most families. Many
adults are very uneasy themselves about birth, and particularly about
the accompanying blood and pain. The child would pick up on that
unease and it wouldn't go well. Many children are too sensitive, or
too needy, or too whatever for their presence to even be discussed as
an option. But it's all about the right family, the right kid, and
the right presentation and preparation. I presented to the Bug in a
matter of fact way that there would probably be blood, but it's extra
for the baby that I won't need anymore. I don't think she sees blood
as something inherently scary. I might be hooting and hollering
(though in the end I did more grunting) but that's OK too, as it's a
lot of hard work that can hurt but in a different way than most
owies. Had she reacted to any of this news with any apprehension I
would have cut things off right there. But she didn't. And I would
have had complete confidence in my mom to get her out and smooth
things over if she started to react badly. It's amazing what little
kids can understand and accept if it's presented at their level
without giving them a lot of emotional overtones. Her understanding
of why Little Dude has to stay at the hospital is every bit as
medically accurate as an adult's, it's just expressed in the language
of a 4 year old. I'll never know how she would have handled it if she
were actually there, and in the end I liked having it be just me and
DH, but I really don't worry that she would have been traumatized.

Kate, ignorant foot soldier of the medical cartel
and the Bug, four and a half and three quarters
and Little Dude, 3/19/08

Akuvikate wrote:

Agreed. It's probably not a good option for most families. Many
adults are very uneasy themselves about birth, and particularly about
the accompanying blood and pain. The child would pick up on that
unease and it wouldn't go well.

Totally agree. In fact, I think that's the biggest factor.
Kids are so very sensitive to their parents' emotions! If the
mother and father are calm and comfortable (emotionally), the child is
very likely to cope very well even with the effort involved. If the
parents are uncomfortable, it almost doesn't matter the objective
circumstances because the kids will be traumatized by picking up on the
parents' discomfort with the situation.

Now, I'd say that as a society we generally have such weird
notions about birth that there are a whole lot of folks who would
find it a very uphill struggle to be comfortable enough with birth
to make it a good place for their children. That's ok--I doubt many
of those folks are even asking themselves whether they should have
their kids at the birth ;-)

Best wishes,
Ericka

I agree. Birth is not a medical procedure unless a c-section is necessary.

well not quite, you can have complications that turn birth into a
medical procedure and are necessary, but ultimately baby still comes out
the right hole! Far more of the time though, we turn birth into a
medical procedure when it isn't.
Anne

"Nan" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 24 Mar 2008 21:24:03 -0400, Ericka Kammerer
wrote:

toypup wrote:



It just occurs to me that if it can be
traumatic for a grown man, it can be traumatic to a young child who
doesn't quite comprehend everything that is going on. Yes, it could be
that it is not a traumatic but a very enriching experience; but if it is
a traumatic experience, that experience cannot be erased.

But it's very rare that the situation flips instantaneously
from fine to traumatic. There's usually plenty of warning for
the responsible adult to take the child off somewhere else. Also,
people self-select into this situation. The parent of a child
likely to struggle with a normal birth isn't likely to look into
this option.

I'm not toypup and I could be wrong, but I'm reading her post to say
that even a "normal" birth can be a traumatic experience for the
child. In my situation I knew E was pretty sensitive so we decided
not to include her. To this day she still says she has no intention
of ever having a baby and she didn't see the birth. Although she knew
what happened to me a week later when my wound eviscerated and she's
afraid of that.

Yes. That's what I meant.

wrote:

I'm pretty sure your grandfather wasn't in the delivery room when your
parent was born and I am sure he had a great and healthy marriage.

That an interesting set of assumptions there. My grandfather was not in
the delivery room when my mother was born. He also left my grandmother
and mother when my mom was 18 months old.

Michelle
Flutist