ON THE INJURIOUS EFFECT OF THE BABY CARRIAGE ON THE PHYSICAL DEVELOPMENT OF THE YOUNG (1880)

On November 10, 1880, Dr. Henry H. Smith of Philadelphia read a paper before the Philadelphia County Medical Society in which he condemned the use of the baby carriage as follows: The advocates of the use of baby-carriages contend that they are beneficial by keeping an infant longer in the fresh air than can be done when it is carried by a nurse, who soon becomes fatigued. This is certainly not true in many instances, as a woman who is not strong enough to carry an infant, even if it weighs twenty-five pounds, is physically unfitted for her duty as a nurse. Such an objection is very apt to be raised by the nurses themselves, and should be regarded with suspicion by the mother. Often it is evidence of laziness or a fondness for flirtation or talking, as may be noted at any time in our parks or squares, and especially in Rittenhouse Square, where many nurses of wealthy children can be daily seen amusing themselves by the hour, totally regardless of the infant, who may be likewise seen with its head hanging out over the side of the carriage, so as to compress the veins of the neck and induce a certain degree of congestion of the brain, if it is not found in some equally-improper and injurious attitude likely to result in curvature or caries of the spine, the origin or exciting cause of which it is subsequently difficult to recognize. Another evil liable to ensue from the constant use of the baby-carriage is the jarring and concussion of the delicate brain and spinal cord of the infant, created by bouncing the carriage over gutters or up and down the curbstones of our sidewalks.... The baby-carriage mania has now reached that point in Philadelphia that an infant and a coach appear to be inseparable, and, though the cost of a baby-carriage is quite an item in the expenses of the nursery, "few there are so poor as not to do it reverence." Of course, it is admitted that there may be instances where the use of a baby-carriage occasionally by a child able to walk a little, or where the carriage permits a poor, tired mother to obtain for herself a little relaxation whilst keeping her baby in its carriage in the Park, or in the case of feeble children or those recuperating from an attack of illness, is advantageous: but, as a general rule, the anatomical and physiological facts just alluded to may be deemed as sufficient to induce physicians to give attention to the abuse of a custom that is by no means the result of necessity in the case of infants or those under twelve months of age.

CHILD ABUSE: THE ROLE OF THE PHYSICIAN AND THE HOSPITAL

We are attempting to do the job which our legislature mandated for public agencies. The legislature did not mandate the money to allow these agencies to effectively fulfill their responsibilities, nor were provisions made for a coordinating individual or agency to supervise and administer the procedures which were mandated. Until these deficiencies are corrected, the hospital must assume a much broader role in child abuse. The hospital is the logical agency which can immediately bridge the wide gap now existing in long-term protection and rehabilitation. That hospitals may be willing to step in and perform this function is suggested by the fact that as of June 1, 1971, 18 hospitals formed Child Abuse Committees at the request of the County Medical Society of New York. If under the present laws of New York state the hospitals are to take on this added burden–and we believe that they should–it is imperative that their work be given support and that recommendations of the hospitals' Child Abuse Committees carry great weight in the deliberations and decisions of the Bureau of Child Welfare and the Family Court.