LivingwithKids

Recently actress Emma Thompson caused a bit of a furore when she said that she couldn't understand women who don't have a natural birth. I think - I hope - she meant women who choose a C-section so they can have a tummy tuck at the same time.

But in any event, personally I would never judge anyone for how they gave birth. I can always remember one of my friends told me she was going to have a completely natural birth. 'I'm not having any drugs,' she told me piously. 'It's so bad for the baby. I'm going to give birth in a pool with music playing. As long as you've done your exercises, it doesn't hurt.' I bit my tongue. Six weeks later she had to have an emergency C-section, with every drug known to man.

I've never understood why some women feel the need to wear their labour like a badge of honour. The way you give birth doesn't make your baby any less precious and personally I don't get the whole suffering in silence thing.

Sometimes, things don't go according to plan. Like when you're trying to deliver a 10lb 13-and-a-half oz baby and he's two weeks overdue. (If you're pregnant with your first baby look away now). Agony doesn't even come close. My waters broke three days before, so I was bed bound and not happy. My contractions had started, and then they'd stopped. In the end I was induced because it was getting dangerous for me and for baby. 'I NEED DRUGS,' I yelled. 'GET ME DRUGS.' We skipped the gas and air and went straight on to pethedine, closely followed by an epidural. The doctor shook her head and said 'has anyone said anything about the size of this baby?' Alarmed doesn't even come close. In any event, it was too bloody late for a C-section.

He was finally born at 4.45pm on a Wednesday, three days after my contractions had first started, and as he was given to me to hold for a few seconds he bawled his eyes out and both his father and I cried with relief. Instant, total love. While I was stitched up (this took some time, it was like a battlefield down there) his dad took him to the Special Care Baby Unit. Fortunately everything was OK and two days later we were allowed home to start our new life as a family.

Happy Easter! xxx

The last time I spoke to my father was on a Friday morning. I was at university in America, and I had been terribly homesick. Dad rang me every morning at 8am, to check that I was OK, to tell me funny stories. ‘I’ll call you on Monday,’ he said. ‘Have a good weekend.’ ‘OK,’ I said.

But on the Sunday afternoon, I had a phone call from home. Dad had dropped dead from a sudden, massive heart attack. The next morning, at 8am, the phone did not ring. Shock and disbelief subsided, terrible realisation dawned. My wonderful father was gone forever. He was 58.

What killed my dad was smoking.

My earliest memories include waking up to the sound of my dad’s smokers’ cough. He had snow white hair (he had gone prematurely grey at 24) but there was a telltale yellow streak – a nicotine stain. He always smelled sweet (Brylcream and Brut) but he was a heavy smoker. Once he bit on a bonbon and three of his teeth fell out. My sister and I thought it was hilarious. It was only later we realised they had rotted because of his addiction.

I can also remember long car journeys where my sister and I felt sick because my dad was chain smoking. It is one of the reasons I have never smoked, even when my friends were buying cigarettes for 1p a go at the shop outside our school and trying to get me to have a drag. It is the reason why I was so angry when I discovered my sister smoked (she stopped when she became pregnant).

My dad wasn’t an ignorant man, he would never have intentionally put his children at any risk, but he grew up in an era where there wasn’t nearly as much information about the dangers of smoking. By the time he realised, it was probably too late. He would have been 80 in April, and it still hurts that we lost him so young.

That’s why I wholeheartedly support the doctors who are calling for a ban on smoking in front of children, but particularly in cars.

Research shows that non-smokers who live with smokers have a greater risk of heart disease than those who don’t. That's a cold, hard fact.

What adults do when they’re on their own is their business. But smoking in front of children is never, ever OK.

The MMR debate continued to dominate headlines this week. I've shared my thoughts before here, but I don't have direct personal experience of autism. So I've asked the wonderful Kathryn Brown, aka Crystal Jigsaw and mum to 10-year-old Amy (right), to write today's guest post:

'When we take our babies to the clinic to have their MMR jabs, there are so many questions we need to be answered, so many doubts about whether we are doing the right thing, especially when the time comes that we have to hold our little ones legs in order to watch someone inflict pain on their tiny limbs.  But since the MMR was offered, there has been a continuous stigma that this inoculation led to children developing autism, a lifelong and incurable condition which affects approximately half a million people in the UK. Many parents declined the MMR jab for their child, believing that they were indeed risking their child developing autism.  This has since been proved inconclusive however, even though the doubt has been planted.

As a parent of a child who was diagnosed with autism at the age of three, having already received the inoculation, I wondered if I had done the right thing.   But the link between MMR and autism does not exist. 

When a diagnosis is reached about your child’s condition, it is normal for a parent to want to find blame; to look around and search for the reason why.  I went through this stage, becoming desperate to understand the confusion which, if I had allowed, would have turned into anger, to later become a search for the scapegoat.  I spoke to doctors, health visitors, specialists, autism support groups, all of which reassured me that the MMR vaccine was simply that; a scapegoat.

If new parents hear from a medical professional that there is a chance their child will develop autism should they have the MMR, it is instinctive that they will feel apprehensive, wanting to question these claims.  Children have lived with autism for many years even without diagnosis and long before the MMR vaccine was introduced in the 1970’s.  Experts in the field of autism, still today, cannot confirm a valid reason why a child may be on the autism spectrum; be it hereditary or perhaps because of a brain injury in early childhood, it is, as yet, unknown.  As parents, we deserve the right to choose what is best for our children; we also deserve an explanation when suspicions arise, in view of lack of information given, to enable the safety and security we need to feel for our child. 

Autism needs a committed advocate to enable the child to move on.  To look for blame is to look back.  Our children are in front of us, they await our assistance, rely on our continuity to support their needs.  I stopped being desperate when I realised my daughter’s condition would never go away.  She is healthy, active, and my future.'

For more information, click here

Yesterday No 1 Son had the swine flu vaccine. This is something his father and I had thought about carefully, although my own recent experience was definitely a deciding factor. (It took me two full weeks to recover, and that was only after a course of antibiotics.)

You see, while our boy isn't in the under-fives age group, he does suffer from asthma, and that makes him vulnerable to any kind of flu and chest infection. Until you've actually coped with an asthmatic child it's hard to understand how serious it can be - although of course if it's carefully controlled you can lead a full and active life. (And all hail David Beckham for admitting he's a sufferer.)

And like many of you, I'm wary about vaccines - not least because my nephew suffered from febrile convulsions after the MMR. But there were times when No 1 Son was younger when he actually lost consciousness as he struggled to breathe, and he spent long periods in hospital. I can't tell you how scary that was. He hasn't had a serious attack for a while, but he does have to use an inhaler every day. And when you're told your child has an illness which puts him in a 'vulnerable' category, you have to do what you think is right to protect them, and that's what we've done.

The leaflet you're given when you're at the GP's assures you that the vaccine is not a 'live' form of the swine flu - you won't develop it as a result of having the innoculation. And you know what? Apart from a sore arm, he doesn't appear to have had any adverse reaction. Hopefully it will stay that way.

With Christmas only 10 weeks away (!) the Christmas Dinner Debate has already started in our family.

This is basically my sister and I arguing over who is going to 'host' (cook) Christmas Dinner for our respective families and the matriarch, aka Granny. Since we live pretty close to each other and we're both good cooks we're really arguing about who wants to leave their home least.

Two Decembers ago my sister had one of those accidents they advertise on TV as a possible compensation claim when she tripped over a pile of rubble left by some workmen outside a cinema. It was night and dark and they hadn't left any warning lights. She broke her shoulder (very painful) so of course I offered to cook. But this was pre-kitchen makeover (!) and my old oven was incredibly temperamental. I think we ate at around 6pm in the end, and there was a lot of grizzling, not just from the kids.

Last year we all went to hers, and it was lovely. But this year, as we've had a new kitchen for the past 18 months, I'm pushing to host.

How do you decide who holds Christmas Dinner in your family? I'd love to know.

If you're feeling nervous about vaccines this week, you're not alone. A new poll by KidStart has revealed that a whopping  50% of British parents plan to refuse the swine flu vaccine for their children or themselves when it is offered.

The survey found that just 28% of parents will accept the vaccine for both themselves and their children, while 15% would have the vaccine themselves and only 7% would give it to their kids without having it themselves.

Clearly, many of you feel that the risks of having the vaccine outweight any potential benefits - and following the tragic death this week of the 14-year-old girl after the cervical cancer jab, it's hardly surprising.

It's also been revealed that 1000 youngsters from six months to 12 years are being recruited across the UK to take part in a swine flu vaccine trial over the next fortnight to see which one works best. I understand the need for testing the vaccine, but being totally honest I wouldn't want my children to take part in such a trial. In fact, I don't think any kids should be exposed to a vaccine unless scientists are 100% sure it's safe.

But my son is asthmatic and therefore in a high risk category. I'm not sure I should really deny him the vaccine when it's offered.

Let me know what you think.

I was very lucky with my childcare when I first went back to work because my sister offered to help out. (She subsequently became a registered childminder so she could look after children she wasn't related to as well.)

And of course it's right that childminders should be registered if they're looking after children whose mothers aren't friends or related to them.

But close friends have shared childcare, either by minding each other's kids for a few hours after school, or in the holidays, for years. Many families would struggle to survive without these more 'casual' arrangements, particularly in the current climate. They should be allowed to continue, regardless of whether there's a financial arrangement in place.

So it seems totally daft to me that two policewomen who are close friends have been told they must be registered childminders to look after each's other's children.

Let me know what you think.

On one of the rare sunny days in August my sister took her six-year-old and a few of his friends to a farm in Surrey for the day.

All the children had a lovely time stroking the sheep, going on pony rides and pretending to be farmers, and afterwards they couldn't stop talking about their brilliant day out. At Godstone Farm.

Understandably, my sister is now nervous, particularly as symptoms of E coli can take a while to materialise. It's a watch-and-wait situation.

The opposite, in fact, of what the Health Protection Agency should have done. They should have closed that farm the minute there was an inkling of E coli instead of waiting until last Saturday and exposing so many children to such a dangerous illness. When they failed to do so, the owners of the farm should have taken the decision themselves.

My heart goes out to those families whose children are seriously ill with E coli after their trip to Godstone. One of the parents is reportedly planning to sue.

I'm sure she won't be the only one.

We're in the process of adopting a rescue dog, which is not as easy as it sounds. Our home has to be vetted, there are reference checks to be made - everything you could wish for, in fact, to ensure the dog is happy in their new home.

I was speaking to someone recently who told me that you have to jump through similar hoops if you want to adopt a child - only of course, as you would expect, the process is far more stringent and takes a lot longer. In fact, even though she and her husband had a lot to offer, they became so disheartened by the whole thing that after two years they gave up, simply unable to bear any more heartache.

What a pity, then, that similar stringent checks aren't done on some prospective natural parents.

The two Doncaster boys who tortured their younger victims came from the worst possible background. The whole family is known to the police and social services, their elder siblings have already been in serious trouble. Their mother reportedly gave them cannabis to keep them quiet, their father gave them beatings. The only way to get attention in that family was to get into trouble. Hardly surprising, then, that these kids should grow up devoid of compassion, determined only to cause chaos, torture and maim.

Now Martin Narey, chief executive of the children's charity Barnado's, has called for early years intervention which would result in some children being taken away at birth.

It sounds so clinical. But the sad truth is that some parents view their children as a nuisance, or a commodity - or, as in the case of Karen Matthews, an opportunity to be exploited. Yes it's inconceivable to caring, loving parents like you and me, but that's the harsh reality. They are simply wired differently, and in my opinion should have to prove they can be responsible before they are even allowed to have access to their kids.

Removing those children at birth would stop this cycle of indifference and abuse - and give them a fighting chance of normal family life.

Here is the first of our expert Q&As - don't forget, you can see the full panel of experts here - and if you have a question, simply email editor@kidstart.co.uk. And if you have anything you'd like to add to the advice, simply leave it in the comment box below.

Q: When is the best time to exercise so that I can fit it in around looking after my two small children?

Nicki Waterman says: There's no 'right' time to exercise but you need to schedule realistic workout times, based on your lifestyle. If you're an early bird, why not set your alarm clock a bit earlier so you can get up and work out before the kids are up? It'll leave you feeling more energised for the rest of the day. Or some mums find that an evening workout can help them unwind after a busy day.

If you have a baby jogger you can work out when you're taking the kids for a walk, or invest in some workout dvds so you can workout in the living room (and keep an eye on them at the same time). And don't think of exercise as something you have to do - find an activity you enjoy and will want to do on a continual basis. Best of luck!

Q: I'm four months pregnant. I understand the swine flu vaccine is going to be offered to pregnant women from October. But is it safe?

Dr Clare Heggie says: I know it's a worrying time for pregnant women at the moment, with so much conflicting advice about swine flu and pregnancy around. You are right that the vaccine is going to be offered to all pregnant women once it is available (in the same way the seasonal flu vaccine is offered now). This decision is based on the fact that pregnant women are four more times likely to be hospitalised with swine flu. Although the majority of pregnant women who get swine flu have an uncomplicated recovery, they are more susceptible to developing complications, for example pneumonia.

The vaccine is currently undergoing clinical trials, and if it is offered to pregnant women it will be on the basis that it thought to be safe for women and their unborn children, and that the risks of not having the vaccine far outweigh the risks of having it. Ultimately, however, it will be entirely your decision whether or not to have the vaccine.