could caesarian babies' lot be improved?

  • 1 Replies

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.


Offline annie123

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 262
    • View Profile
could caesarian babies' lot be improved?
« on: 29/06/2012 01:02:00 »
If Caesarian born babies are compromised re immune protection because they didn't get a dose of mum's gunk on the natural way out, is there any way the fluids that the baby would have passed through naturally could be suctioned off and used to bathe the new born in to make up for the lack of benefits from mum's immune defences that the baby would have acquired through normal channels? I think my new grandson is going to have allergies non stop because he's a caesarian baby and his parents are paranoid re hygiene.But what does grandma know?


Offline CliffordK

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 6321
  • Site Moderator
    • View Profile
Re: could caesarian babies' lot be improved?
« Reply #1 on: 30/06/2012 08:02:17 »
I will start out with stating that parental smoking has been related to childhood development of Asthma and Allergies.  If that is the case, then the first thing that could easily be changed is to simply stop smoking.

For older children, allergy sensitization is a possibility, but it is a long course of treatment.  Perhaps that is what farm kids get, sensitization. 

A number of studies have shown that farm kids presumably have higher exposure to microbes and allergens, but lower allergies.  For example, an Amish Study indicates that Amish children have a much lower incidence of allergies, both through symptoms, and tests than their Swiss relatives.

Studies seem to indicate that C-Section babies have different flora than natural birth babies.

In fact, the C-Section babies had a higher probability of being colonized by C-difficile, or even Methicillin-Resistant Staphylococcus Aureus (MRSA).  And, the different flora at the time of birth may actually have some long-term consequences in terms of Asthma and Allergies.

What I would have to wonder is if hospitals not only have difficult to treat bacteria, but in an attempt to make a "sterile" environment, many of the normal bacteria are also absent, at a critical time for infants to be acquiring environmental bacteria. 

Shortly after childbirth is a unique period where a baby will have maternal antibodies in its blood, but not be producing its own antibodies yet.  Breast milk also transfers some additional antibodies.

If one was to choose to expose the infant to additional environmental bacteria, it would likely be better to transfer maternal bacteria than some centrally produced cocktail.  That is, if the mother does not have a known incurable disease such as hepatitis B, C, or HIV, that with some luck, the infant might be protected from.   One could do a vaginal and skin swab of the mother, and swab it into the baby's mouth, nose, anus, and skin. 

Maybe a special pro-biotic infant yogurt formula.

The problem might be that while it might improve the long-term outcome for many of the infants, what if such a procedure increased infant mortality by as little as one or two per thousand births (0.2%)?  The legal ramifications of intentionally infecting an infant with bacteria or viruses might be staggering, even if the bacteria is normally not pathogenic.