Advice to a Mother on the Management of Her Children Part 4

She ought, as the word signifies, do it gradually--that is to say, she should, by degrees, give him less and less of the breast, and more and more of artificial food; at length, she must only suckle him at night; and lastly, it would be well for the mother either to send him away, or to leave him at home, and, for a few days, to go away herself.

A good plan is, for the nurse-maid to have a half-pint bottle of new milk--which has been previously boiled [Footnote: The previous boiling of the milk will prevent the warmth of the bed turning the milk sour, which it otherwise would do.]--in the bed, so as to give a little to him in lieu of the breast. The warmth of the body will keep the milk of a proper temperature, and will supersede the use of lamps, of candle-frames, and of other troublesome contrivances.

42. _While a mother is weaning her infant, and after she have weaned him, what ought to be his diet_?

Any one of the foods recommended in answer to question 34.

43. _If a child be suffering severely from "wind," is there any objection to the addition of a small quant.i.ty either of gin or of peppermint to his food to disperse it_?

It is a murderous practice to add either gin or peppermint of the shops (which is oil of peppermint dissolved in spirits) to his food. Many children have, by such a practice, been made puny and delicate, and have gradually dropped into an untimely grave. An infant who is kept, for the first five or six months, _entirely_ to the breast--more especially if the mother be careful in her own diet--seldom suffers from "wind;" those, on the contrary, who have much or improper food, [Footnote: For the first five or six months never, if you can possibly avoid it, give artificial food to an infant who is sucking. There is nothing, in the generality of cases, that agrees, for the first few months, like the mother's milk _alone_.]

suffer severely.

Care in feeding, then, is the grand preventative of "wind;" but if, notwithstanding all your precautions, the child be troubled with flatulence, the remedies recommended under the head of Flatulence will generally answer the purpose.

44. _Have you any remarks to make on sugar for sweetening a baby's food_?

A _small_ quant.i.ty of sugar in an infant's food is requisite, sugar being nouris.h.i.+ng and fattening, and making cow's milk to resemble somewhat, in its properties human milk; but, bear in mind, _it must be used sparingly._ _Much_ sugar cloys the stomach, weakens the digestion, produces acidity, sour belchings, and wind:--

"Things sweet to taste, prove in digestion sour."

_Shakspeare._

If a babe's bowels be either regular or relaxed, _lump_ sugar is the best for the purpose of sweetening his food; if his bowels are inclined to be costive, _raw_ sugar ought to be subst.i.tuted for lump sugar, as _raw_ sugar acts on a young babe as an aperient, and, in the generality of cases, is far preferable to physicking him with opening medicine. An infant's bowels, whenever it be practicable (and it generally is), ought to be regulated by a judicious dietary rather than by physic.

VACCINATION AND RE-VACCINATION.

45. _Are you an advocate for vaccination_?

Certainly. I consider it to be one of the greatest blessings ever conferred upon mankind. Small-pox, before vaccination was adopted, ravaged the country like a plague, and carried off thousands annually; and those who did escape with their lives were frequently made loathsome and disgusting objects by it. Even inoculation (which is cutting for the small-pox) was attended with danger, more especially to the unprotected--as it caused the disease to spread like wildfire, and thus it carried off immense numbers.

Vaccination is one, and an important cause of our increasing population; small-pox, in olden times, decimated the country.

46. _But vaccination does not always protect a child from, small-pox_?

I grant you that it does not _always_ protect him, _neither does inoculation_; but when he is vaccinated, if he take the infection, he is seldom pitted, and very rarely dies, and the disease a.s.sumes a comparatively mild form. There are a few, very few fatal cases recorded after vaccination, and these may be considered as only exceptions to the general rule; and, possibly, some of these may be traced to the arm, when the child was vaccinated, not having taken proper effect.

If children, and adults were _re-vaccinated_,--say every seven years after the first vaccination,--depend upon it, even these rare cases would not occur, and in a short time small-pox would be known only by name.

47. _Do you consider it, then, the imperative duty of a mother, in every case, to have, after the lapse of every seven years, her children re-vaccinated_?

I decidedly do: it would be an excellent plan for _every_ person, once every seven years to be re-vaccinated, and even oftener, if small-pox be rife in the neighbourhood. Vaccination, however frequently performed, can never do the slightest harm, and might do inestimable good. Small-pox is both a pest and a disgrace, and ought to be constantly fought and battled with, until it be banished (which it may readily be) the kingdom.

I say that small-pox is a pest; it is worse than the plague, for if not kept in subjection, it is more general--sparing neither young nor old, rich nor poor, and commits greater ravages than the plague ever did. Small-pox is a disgrace: it is a disgrace to any civilised land, as there is no necessity for its presence, if cow-pox were properly and frequently performed, small-pox would be unknown. Cow-pox is a weapon to conquer small-pox and to drive it ignominiously from the field.

My firm belief, then, is, that if _every_ person were, _every seven years_, duly and properly vaccinated, small-pox might be utterly exterminated; but as long as there are such lax notions on the subject, and such gross negligence, the disease will always be rampant, for the poison of small-pox never slumbers nor sleeps, but requires the utmost diligence to eradicate it. The great Dr Jenner, the discoverer of cow-pox as a preventative of small-pox, strongly advocated the absolute necessity of _every_ person being re-vaccinated once every seven years, or even, oftener, if there was an epidemic of small-pox in the neighbourhood.

48. _Are you not likely to catch not only the cow-pox, but any other disease that the child has from whom the matter is taken_?

The same objection holds good in cutting for small pox (inoculation)--only in a ten-fold degree--small-pox being such a disgusting complaint. Inoculated small-pox frequently produced and left behind inveterate "breakings-out," scars, cicatrices, and indentations of the skin, sore eyes, blindness, loss of eyelashes, scrofula, deafness--indeed, a long catalogue of loathsome diseases. A medical man, of course, will be careful to take the cow-pox matter from a healthy child.

49. _Would it not be well to take the matter direct from the cow_?

If a doctor be careful--which, of course, he will be--to take the matter from a healthy child, and from a well-formed vesicle, I consider it better than taking it _direct_ from the cow, for the following reasons:--The cow-pox lymph, taken direct from the cow, produces much more violent symptoms than after it has pa.s.sed through several persons; indeed, in some cases, it has produced effects as severe as cutting for the small-pox, besides, it has caused, in many cases, violent inflammation and even sloughing of the arm. There are also several kinds of _spurious_ cow-pox to which the cow is subject, and which would be likely to be mistaken for the _real_ lymph. Again, if even the _genuine_ matter were not taken from the cow _exactly_ at the proper time, it would he deprived of its protecting power.

50. _At what age do you recommend an infant to be first vaccinated_?

When he is two months old, as the sooner he is protected the better. Moreover, the older he is the greater will be the difficulty in making him submit to the operation, and in preventing his arm from being rubbed, thus endangering the breaking of the vesicles, and thereby interfering with its effects. If small-pox be prevalent in the neighbourhood, he may, with perfect safety, be vaccinated at the month's end; indeed if the small-pox be near at hand, he _must_ be vaccinated, regardless of his age, and regardless of everything else, for small-pox spares neither the young nor the old, and if a new-born babe should unfortunately catch the disease, he will most likely die, as at his tender age he would not have strength to battle with such a formidable enemy. "A case, in the General Lying-in-Hospital, Lambeth, of small-pox occurred in a woman a few days after her admission, and the birth of her child. Her own child was vaccinated when only four days old, and all the other infants in the house varying from one day to a fortnight and more. All took the vaccination; and the woman's own child, which suckled her and slept with her; and all escaped the small pox." [Footnote: Communicated by Sir Charles Loc.o.c.k to the Author.]

51. _Do you consider that taking of matter from a child's arm weakens the effect of vaccination on the system_?

Certainly not, provided it has taken effect in more than one place. The arm is frequently much inflamed, and vaccinating other children from it abates the inflammation, and thus affords relief. _It is always well to leave one vesicle undisturbed_.

52. _If the infant have any "breaking out" upon the skin, ought that to be a reason for deferring the vaccination_?

It should, as two skin diseases cannot well go on together; hence the cow-pox might not take, or, if it did, might not have its proper effect in preventing small-pox. "It is essential that the vaccine bud or germ have a congenial soil, uncontaminated by another poison, which, like a weed, might choke its healthy growth."--_Dendy_. The moment the skin be free from the breaking-out, he must be vaccinated. A trifling skin affection, like red gum, unless it be severe, ought not, at the proper age to prevent vaccination. If small-pox be rife in the neighbourhood, the child _must_ be vaccinated, regardless of any "breaking-out" on the skin.

53. _Does vaccination make a child poorly_?

At about the fifth day after vaccination, and for three or four days, he is generally a little feverish; the mouth is slightly hot, and he delights to have the nipple in his mouth. He does not rest so well at night; he is rather cross and irritable; and, sometimes, has a slight bowel-complaint. The arm, about the ninth or tenth day, is usually much inflamed--that is to say it is, for an inch or two or more around the vesicles, red, hot, swollen, and continues in this state for a day or two, at the end of which time the inflammation gradually subsides. It might be well to state that the above slight symptoms are desirable, as it proves that the vaccination has had a proper effect on his system, and that, consequently, he is more likely to be thoroughly protected from any risk of catching small-pox.

54. _Do you approve, either during or after vaccination, of giving medicine, more especially if he be a little feverish_?

No, as it would be likely to work off some of its effects, and thus would rob the cow-pox of its efficacy on the system. I do not like to interfere with vaccination _in any way whatever_ (except, at the proper time, to take a little matter from the arm), but to allow the pock to have full power upon his const.i.tution.

What do you give the medicine for? If the matter that is put into the arm be healthy, what need is there of physic! And if the matter be not of good quality, I am quite sure that no physic will make it so! Look, therefore, at the case in whatever way you like, physic after vaccination is _not_ necessary; but, on the contrary, hurtful. If the vaccination produce slight feverish attack, it will, without the administration of a particle of medicine, subside in two or three days.

55. _Have you any directions to give respecting the arm AFTER vaccination_?

The only precaution necessary is to take care that the arm be not rubbed; otherwise the vesicles may be prematurely broken, and the efficacy of the vaccination may be lessened. The sleeve, in vaccination, ought to be large and soft, and should not be tied up. The tying up of a sleeve makes it hard, and is much more likely to rub the vesicles than if it were put on the usual way.

56. _If the arm, AFTER vaccination, be much inflamed, what ought to be done_?

Smear frequently, by means of a feather or a camel's hair brush, a little cream on the inflamed part. This simple remedy will afford great comfort and relief.

57. _Have the goodness to describe the proper appearance, after the falling-off of the scab of the arm_?

It might be well to remark, that the scabs ought always to be allowed to fall off of themselves. They must not, on any account, be picked or meddled with. With regard to the proper appearance of the arm, after the falling-off of the scab, "a perfect vaccine scar should be of small size, circular, and marked with radiations and indentations."-- _Gregory_.

DENt.i.tION

58. _At what time does dent.i.tion commence_?

The period at which it commences is uncertain. It may, as a rule, be said that a babe begins to cut his teeth at seven months old. Some have cut teeth at three months; indeed, there are instances on record of infants having been born with teeth. King Richard the Third is said to have been an example. Shakspeare notices it thus:--

"YORK.--Marry, they say my uncle grew so fast, That he could gnaw a crust at two hours old.

'Twas full two years ere I could get a tooth, Grandam, this would have been a biting jest."