The stupidest advice I received as a new parent.

I’m a new parent. My son was born about 8 months ago. He’s perfectly healthy and, other than his teething (which is the new reason why I don’t sleep) he is a very mellow and happy baby.

As a new parent, my wife and I received a lot of advice about raising a child. And honestly most of it was neutral, neither really good nor bad just examples of things that worked for some parents. But some of it was bad. Just bad…

Circumcision

There is no reason to circumcise your son. I’ll say it again. There is no reason to circumcise your son.

Circumcision in the United States seems to fall in and out of favor in waves.  Circumcision is currently declining in popularity and currently hovers at around 50% in the US. Oddly enough, I never received this piece of advice from men: only women. And one of the main arguments I heard was that it would make the penis look better.

Well I happen to believe that this should be up to my son, when he’s old enough to make that decision and if he chooses to be circumcised I’ll pay for the procedure. The thing is, circumcision is not reversible and there’s no real reason to ever circumcise your child.

The arguments in favor of circumcision are weak and the arguments against it are pretty compelling. A few arguments that are used, besides the argument from physical appearance which is such an obvious fallacy I won’t waste the space arguing against it, usually revolve around a few weak health claims.

There is some evidence that circumcision reduces the risk of STD transmission.¹⁾Krieger, J. N. (2012). Male circumcision and HIV infection risk. World Journal of Urology, 30(1), 3–13. http://doi.org/10.1007/s00345-011-0696-x However, this reduction of risk is only about 60% at best, and this effect only exists for males; it doesn’t reduce the risk of a female contacting STD’s from a male.²⁾Siegfried, N., Muller, M., Deeks, J. J., & Volmink, J. (2009). Male circumcision for prevention of heterosexual acquisition of HIV in men. The Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, (2), CD003362. http://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD003362.pub2 However these studies were performed in Sub Saharan Africa where access to prophylactics is greatly reduced. There is an argument to be made that, in such a situation circumcision may be recommended.³⁾Krieger, J. N. (2012). Male circumcision and HIV infection risk. World Journal of Urology, 30(1), 3–13. http://doi.org/10.1007/s00345-011-0696-x In Western countries the 60% reduction pales in comparison to the 99.7% reduction that a condom provides.⁴⁾Kim, H. H., Li, P. S., & Goldstein, M. (2010). Male circumcision: Africa and beyond? Current Opinion in Urology, 20(6), 515–519. http://doi.org/10.1097/MOU.0b013e32833f1b21 The STD prevention argument is simply not compelling enough of a reason given the availability of more effective methods.

The other main argument is the reduction of UTIs in children. The UTI rate in males is about 1%.⁵⁾Circumcision, T. F. O. (2012). Male Circumcision. Pediatrics, 130(3), e756–e785. http://doi.org/10.1542/peds.2012-1990 My son actually got a UTI when he was one month old. He was hospitalized for 4 days. That was about the scariest moment of my life, and I’m happy to say that he’s fine. Now there is some evidence that suggest that circumcision reduces the risk of UTI’s by as high as 30%.⁶⁾Morris, B. J., & Wiswell, T. E. (2013). Circumcision and lifetime risk of urinary tract infection: a systematic review and meta-analysis. The Journal of Urology, 189(6), 2118–2124. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2012.11.114 However, given the low rate of UTI prevelence in the US population, there’s really not a good statistical argument to be made for using circumcision as a method of preventing UTIs.⁷⁾Lissauer T, Clayden G (October 2011). Illustrated Textbook of Paediatrics, Fourth edition. Elsevier. pp. 352–353. ISBN 978-0-7234-3565-5.

Lastly, there is some slight evidence that circumcision can reduce the rate of penile cancer.⁸⁾Larke, N. L., Thomas, S. L., dos Santos Silva, I., & Weiss, H. A. (2011). Male circumcision and penile cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Cancer Causes & Control, 22(8), 1097–1110. http://doi.org/10.1007/s10552-011-9785-9 But the rates are so low (about 1 new case per 100,000 people per year) that using circumcision as a method of cancer prevention is mathematically ludicrous, given the risks.⁹⁾Circumcision, T. F. O. (2012). Male Circumcision. Pediatrics, 130(3), e756–e785. http://doi.org/10.1542/peds.2012-1990

The risks are also quite minor, to be honest. Neonatal circumcision is in fact quite safe in the US. Risks include bleeding, infections, excess removal of skin, all of which have a prevalence that is quite low. There’s also some anecdotal evidence that it reduces sexual pleasure, but anecdote isn’t data. I’m not really concerned by the adverse reactions.

My argument is simply this: the benefits don’t outweigh the cost. I’m not talking abou the very low likelihood of adverse reactions. I’m simply talking about the fact that it’s irreversible. I simply don’t want to subject my son to a procedure that has no real benefit other than cosmetic appeal, which should be up to him.

Non-GMO and Organic Baby Food

I’m not really going to write about this in detail. There is no evidence that GMOs are damaging to either humans or the environment (and they’ve been studied for over 20 years. Likewise there’s no evidence that organic food is healthier for humans. In fact, organic food leads to more pesticide use overall, so if you want to avoid pesticides you should be grabbing the GMO baby food, not the stuff that costs three times as much.¹⁰⁾American Association for the Advancement of Science. (2012). Statement by the AAAS board of directors on labeling of genetically modified foods (Position Statement).¹¹⁾Ronald, P. (2011). Plant Genetics, Sustainable Agriculture and Global Food Security. Genetics, 188(1), 11–20. http://doi.org/10.1534/genetics.111.128553

Home Birth

No. America has gotten really good at delivering babies. We have it down to a science. Home birth increases the risk of your child dying.¹²⁾Snowden, J. M., Tilden, E. L., Snyder, J., Quigley, B., Caughey, A. B., & Cheng, Y. W. (2015). Planned Out-of-Hospital Birth and Birth Outcomes. New England Journal of Medicine, 373(27), 2642–2653. http://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMsa1501738 This risk is quite low in both cases, so you basically have to do a risk analysis. For me, a home birth was never an option. I wanted my son to be in a building with doctors, nurses, all the medication he needs, his vitamin k shots, etc.

Home birth is just bad advice. The benefits essentially boil down to comfort: you’ll be more comfortable giving birth in your home. Fine, I don’t disagree with that. But on the off chance that something goes wrong (very low in both cases I’ll admit) I’d like to have the doctors and nurses within seconds’ reach rather than half an hour at best, and hours at worst.

Bite Back

I don’t even know where to begin with this one. Our son doesn’t have teeth yet but I’ve read this on so many forums that I fear it’s a national trend. Don’t bite back. I’m a behaviorist and I can say that, when it comes to corporal punishment this is the least effective method to prevent your baby from biting you. When you bite your baby back this is a form of positive punishment: adding something into the situation (the bite) that is designed to reduce the frequency with which a undesired behavior (biting) occurs. The problem with Positive Punishment is that it is minimally effective and often needs an increase in the severity of response (i.e. biting harder each time) in order to maintain the desired behavior.¹³⁾Durrant, J., & Ensom, R. (2012). Physical punishment of children: lessons from 20 years of research. Canadian Medical Association Journal, 184(12), 1373–1377. http://doi.org/10.1503/cmaj.101314 In addition, the outcomes of this type of parenting style are verifiably negative, including increased levels of defiant behavior later on in life.¹⁴⁾Mendez, M. D. (2013). Corporal punishment and externalizing behaviors in toddlers: positive and harsh parenting as moderators. Retrieved from http://krex.k-state.edu/dspace/handle/2097/16276

First and foremost this runs the risk of actually harming your child, even if you plan on giving him/her a little nibble. But aside from that, do you really want to teach your child that it’s okay to bite back?

Honestly the best approach (and this comes from someone who has worked with highly aggressive autistic individuals who do a lot more than toddler’s nibble) is to avoid/evade the biting if possible, and if not possible simply ignore it. Once your child has speech you can explain to them that this hurts mommy or daddy. Your child will (eventually) understand that they shouldn’t bite people without the need to experience having been bitten by an adult.

Attachment Parenting

I don’t really have an issue with Attachment Parenting per se. It’s mainly a collection of ideas, some good, some bad, and one or two dangerous.

Attachment Parenting is related to Attachment Theory but they are not the same thing. Briefly, Attachment theory relates to the way in which a young child forms attachment to their primary caregiver, typically their mothers. Babies who are neglected or abused often form insecure attachments. Babies who typically have their needs met form secure attachments. Attachment Parenting are a list of strategies designed to create a secure attachment in your baby.

Attachment Parenting was first formulated by  William Sears, a Pediatrician, based off of the emerging research on Attachment Theory. From his book, The Baby Book¹⁵⁾Sears, William and Sears, Martha (1992, 2nd ed. 2003). The Baby Book: Everything You Need to Know About Your Baby From Birth to Age Two (ISBN 9780316778008), pp. 4-10, the core tenets of Attachment Parenting are: 

1. Birth bonding: The first few hours after birth are regarded as very important to promote attachment.
2. Belief in the signal value of your baby’s cries: Parents are encouraged to learn to understand their baby’s cries and respond quickly and appropriately to them.
3. Breastfeeding: This is regarded to have physical and psychological advantages to both mother and child.
4. Babywearing: The term was first used by Dr. Sears and it means carrying the baby in a sling or other carrier, close to the body of the caregiver.
5. Bedding close to baby: Sleeping in the same room and preferably in the same bed as the baby is encouraged, as is frequent (breast) feeding at night.
6. Balance and boundaries: Appropriate responsiveness (knowing when to say yes and when to say no) is needed to keep a healthy family alive.
7. Beware of baby trainers: Instead of taking advice about how to ‘train’ the baby to make it cry less and sleep for longer stretches, parents are encouraged to listen to their own instinct and intuition.

My issue with Attachment Parenting isn’t with the system as a whole. I’m going to break down these tenets and you’ll see that it’s of some good advice and some bad advice. The good advice is universally accepted by experts and the bad advice (or neutral) simply doesn’t have any research to back it up.¹⁶⁾Hays, S. (1998). The Fallacious Assumptions and Unrealistic Prescriptions of Attachment Theory: A Comment on “Parents’ Socioemotional Investment in Children.” Journal of Marriage and Family, 60(3), 782–790. http://doi.org/10.2307/353546

Birth Bonding: This is fairly widely accepted. There’s simply no harm in doing it, most hospitals usually have parents spend the first hour or longer alone with their baby, allowing the baby to breastfeed and bond. It probably does more good for the parents than the baby but there’s no reason not to. That being said, the vital importance on it that AP proponents place on it have resulted in needlessly stressing parents who, for various reasons involving their or their baby’s health, couldn’t spend the first few hours bonding. It’s important but there’s no evidence to suggest that a lack of bonding time in the first few hours will have any real negative effects on your child’s later development.

Signal Value: That’s a fancy phrase that means being able to understand what your baby’s cries mean. Well parents are already able to do this with the broad strokes: you can tell pretty easily when your baby has a dirty diaper, when s/he’s tired and when s/he’s hungry. But anything deeper is not really going to happen, according to research.¹⁷⁾Hays, S. (1998). The Fallacious Assumptions and Unrealistic Prescriptions of Attachment Theory: A Comment on “Parents’ Socioemotional Investment in Children.” Journal of Marriage and Family, 60(3), 782–790. http://doi.org/10.2307/353546

Breastfeeding: Again every doctor in the world already recommends this. But if you can’t, which is actually fairly common for numerous reasons, it’s not the end of the world. AP also advocates frequent breastfeeding at night. This is pretty unavoidable early on but eventually your baby becomes able to go up to 8 hours without food. After that it’s up to you if you want to feed your baby at night or not. We do not (unless he happened to miss a feeding during the day and has gone longer than 8 hours when he has woken of course).

Babywearing: The idea behind this is keeping your baby as close to your baby as possibly, preferably skin to skin. Not really harmful (so long as you use your baby carrier properly) except it’ll kill your back, but again it’s not the end of the world if you let your baby have their tummy time once in a while.

Co-Sleeping: This depends on what you mean by the term. Many AP advocates say that the baby should sleep in your bed. This is a bad idea. Let me say it clearly: your baby should never sleep in your bed. Ever. This increases the risk of Sudden Infant Death Syndrome according to the CDC. The current recommendation, via the CDC is that babies should sleep in the same room as parents, but not the same bed, in order to reduce the risk of SIDS. As an aside, the CDC also recommends the baby sleeping on his/her back, on a firm mattress without anything else in the crib and that the baby use a pacifier. All of which reduces the risk of SIDS.

Balance and boundaries: The basic premise is to set up boundaries and promote an authoritative parenting style. Generally good advice.

Avoiding “training” your baby: This is a bit of a tricky issue, but I generally agree with this. Yes laboratory studies on “sleep training” which is essentially the behavioral process of extinction confirm it as an (not the most) effective method of getting your baby to sleep during the night. But at home is not a lab. Most subsequent information indicates that proper behavioral techniques are not always followed, which will reduce the effectiveness of this method. Add to that the risk of neurological damage from the constant stress of crying for extended periods of time¹⁸⁾Perry, B. D., Pollard, R. A., Blakley, T. L., Baker, W. L., & Vigilante, D. (1995). Childhood trauma, the neurobiology of adaptation and “use-dependent” development of the brain: How “states” become “traits.” Infant Mental Health Journal, 16(4), 271–291.¹⁹⁾Price, A. M. H., Wake, M., Ukoumunne, O. C., & Hiscock, H. (2012). Five-Year Follow-up of Harms and Benefits of Behavioral Infant Sleep Intervention: Randomized Trial. PEDIATRICS, 130(4), 643–651. http://doi.org/10.1542/peds.2011-3467 and we decided against sleep training. We do let him cry for a minute or so to see if he’ll put himself back to sleep, but considering that he typically gets his 8 uninterrupted hours most nights he’s doing fine. We certainly won’t let him go 10 minutes or longer sleeping.

So as you can see most of the tenets of AP are fairly decent advice, but the extreme importance AP advocates place on things that are basically unnecessary (but harmless) or in fact harmful (mainly co-sleeping) mean that advocating Attachment Parenting is bad advice in my book. I’d rather take the parts of AP that are good ideas and chuck out the useless or bad ideas. Add to that the fact that AP is basically unsustainable for most parents who aren’t in the upper-middle class.

Sleep when the baby sleeps

This bit isn’t bad advice, it’s just not helpful. We would love to sleep when the baby sleeps, but if we did that then we wouldn’t get the dishes done. The trash wouldn’t get taken out. We wouldn’t be able to cook food. And more importantly, I wouldn’t get to work.

Currently  my day involves waking up, feeding my son, playing for a little bit while I get read for work. Driving him to his grandparents, then heading to work. (My wife works earlier than I do so I usually drop him off). After work I pick him up (grandma and grandpa live close to my work), return home, take care of him until he sleeps (I can leave him in his pack’n’play or crib for a handful of minutes but it’s not like this gives us any time to get much of anything done). Then when he sleeps it’s time to cook dinner, do the dishes, pay bills, do the laundry, clean bottles, take out the trash and do just about everything else my wife and I didn’t have time to do during the rest of the day. Which of course affords us only a few precious hours to sleep. Luckily our son generally sleeps for 8 hours straight through the night which would be great… if we were able to go to sleep when he did.

Oddly enough, the people who give us this type of advice are usually experienced parents… from about 30 years ago (namely our parents). I rather feel that time has shaded their memory of taking care of a young baby. Either way it’s not helpful advice because believe me we sleep as often as we can, as long as we can.

Vaccination

I was never given this advice. Everyone who knows me knows my stance on vaccination. I did have a friend get upset when I told them they would not be allowed in the same room as my baby unless they got their TDAP shot as the CDC recommends. I was both unapologetic and unwavering in this decision.

Credits:

The image used for this post is Sleeping baby with arm extended from Wikimedia Commons.