I don't think there's anything more confusing about a pregnancy than trying to figure out what the expecting mother should and should not be eating. And I'm not talking about the appetite issues that we've already discussed. I'm talking in terms of the baby's health.
If you don't count liquor or smoking cigarettes, I'm pretty sure there's not a single food item that is universally considered bad for the baby.* A great example of this is fish. Many doctors will tell you that pregnant mothers need to avoid certain kinds of fish, because of the high mercury content. And indeed, the federal government gives the same advice: pregnant moms should avoid certain kinds of fish, and limit their consumption of all fish to 12 ounces per week.
However, a new study, being touted in the news and backed by most of the American medical community, suggests that the benefits of eating lots of fish --- at least 12 ounces a week --- vastly outweigh the dangers posed by the high levels of mercury. Isn't that convenient.
Sigh.
Even more frustrating is the "supplement" scene. I thought we were doing pretty well on this front. SJC takes an over-the-counter pre-natal vitamin, which supposedly contains a whole range of things are great for the baby and typically under-consumed by the average American woman. Easy enough. What I wasn't expecting was the barrage of free samples we were going to receive at our first visit to the doctor: we got trial packs of two different kinds of prescription pre-natal vitamins --- one called PrimaCare that highlights its "daily supply of Omega-3s" and one called Prenate Elite that "meets the USP standard for folic acid dissolution" and is apparently the "first and only Rx prenatal vitamin with MetaFolin," whatever that is --- and also something called Expecta, which apparently aids brain and eye development.
And all this really annoys me. Of course I want a healthy baby. But I don't want doctors, researchers, and drug companies making me feel bad for not forcing my wife to take a handful of pills four times a day. The way it's presented to you, it makes you wonder how any healthy babies were ever born in the 19th century, or the 1970's for that matter. But I do feel bad, because everyone dreads an unhealthy baby, and who else is to blame if you ignored the crystal clear recommendations of the PrimaCare company?
As best I can tell, all of this serves only one purpose: to make Mom feel guilty about not taking every last pill on the market that claims to help the baby. SJC's prenatal vitamin can really upset her stomach, but she often takes it because she feels so bad about not taking it, even just for one day. I think this is the first instance we've run into of what our friend calls "Mother Guilt":
I mean, what if he/she wants to go to the Naval Academy someday?
Sigh.
----------------
*And I suppose there are probably still doctors in Ireland prescribing Guinness for pregnant mothers, so maybe there isn't even true universal agreement on liquor.
If you don't count liquor or smoking cigarettes, I'm pretty sure there's not a single food item that is universally considered bad for the baby.* A great example of this is fish. Many doctors will tell you that pregnant mothers need to avoid certain kinds of fish, because of the high mercury content. And indeed, the federal government gives the same advice: pregnant moms should avoid certain kinds of fish, and limit their consumption of all fish to 12 ounces per week.
However, a new study, being touted in the news and backed by most of the American medical community, suggests that the benefits of eating lots of fish --- at least 12 ounces a week --- vastly outweigh the dangers posed by the high levels of mercury. Isn't that convenient.
Sigh.
Even more frustrating is the "supplement" scene. I thought we were doing pretty well on this front. SJC takes an over-the-counter pre-natal vitamin, which supposedly contains a whole range of things are great for the baby and typically under-consumed by the average American woman. Easy enough. What I wasn't expecting was the barrage of free samples we were going to receive at our first visit to the doctor: we got trial packs of two different kinds of prescription pre-natal vitamins --- one called PrimaCare that highlights its "daily supply of Omega-3s" and one called Prenate Elite that "meets the USP standard for folic acid dissolution" and is apparently the "first and only Rx prenatal vitamin with MetaFolin," whatever that is --- and also something called Expecta, which apparently aids brain and eye development.
And all this really annoys me. Of course I want a healthy baby. But I don't want doctors, researchers, and drug companies making me feel bad for not forcing my wife to take a handful of pills four times a day. The way it's presented to you, it makes you wonder how any healthy babies were ever born in the 19th century, or the 1970's for that matter. But I do feel bad, because everyone dreads an unhealthy baby, and who else is to blame if you ignored the crystal clear recommendations of the PrimaCare company?
As best I can tell, all of this serves only one purpose: to make Mom feel guilty about not taking every last pill on the market that claims to help the baby. SJC's prenatal vitamin can really upset her stomach, but she often takes it because she feels so bad about not taking it, even just for one day. I think this is the first instance we've run into of what our friend calls "Mother Guilt":
the increasing feelings of despair that you're not doing all the right things for your kids because either you don't know what they are or you're too tired to do more than what you're doing or you're not entirely sure you agree with what others perceive are the right things to do and is it just a matter of some things being right for those mothers, but those same things just aren't a good fit for your own family? When should you heed the advice of others, and when should you listen to your own strong, authentic, God-given maternal instinct about your own children?I used to laugh at parents who were obsessed with all the "latest news" on children's health, safety, and all the rest. Now I think I'm starting to understand where it comes from. How can I possibly deprive the baby of the Expecta it needs for its vision?
I mean, what if he/she wants to go to the Naval Academy someday?
Sigh.
----------------
*And I suppose there are probably still doctors in Ireland prescribing Guinness for pregnant mothers, so maybe there isn't even true universal agreement on liquor.
I am confused most of the time about all the drug adds I see on TV and you know I watch a lot of TV. I also know that I am supposed to ask if these drugs are right for me. (My doctor told me that PrimaCare isn't right for me) See how confused I get. I wonder what historians will write about the onslaught of drugs on us during this period of time.
ReplyDeleteOops -- the link didn't show up very well ... try this:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.nydailynews.com/
lifestyle/2006/04/06/
2006-04-06_to_booze_or_
not_to_booze_modern_moms_are.html
I agree with you wholeheartedly on your whole post! Especially the very well worded and profound quote from the Sherwin blog! :)
ReplyDeleteYou might be interested in this article: http://www.nydailynews.com/lifestyle/2006/04/06/2006-04-06_to_booze_or_not_to_booze_modern_moms_are.html. It was from a couple years ago, when Gwyneth Paltrow was pregnant and seen drinking Guinness.