.jpg)
Wouldn’t it be nice to have a real reason to keep our dogs around our babies? Some people are terrified of the idea, thinking that it’s dangerous to let dogs around small children. At first it’s best never to leave dogs alone with babies, to make sure the animals know to be gentle around them. However, we pet owners know that some dogs are great with babies.
There have already been some studies about how being around dogs in the first year of infancy can help reduce the chances of a child later developing allergies to dogs, but what about health in general? Dogs can be dirty: they’ll eat anything, so goodness only knows where those mouths have been. Some schools of thought might believe that dogs are dangerous to children not because they’ll actually hurt them, but that they’ll expose them to germs.
Others might believe the opposite: not that dogs won’t expose babies to more germs, but that exposure might be good for children. We live in such an over-sanitized world that there’s a fear that children aren’t developing enough antibodies and immunities, actually putting them at higher risk of becoming ill.
Scientific journal Pediatrics just published a new study that might suggest the latter. The Mother Nature Network reports. Before we get into the details we have to remember one important thing, and I know this because I used to work for a medical journal: the researchers are just reporting the facts that they see as a result of their study. They rarely, if ever, make broad suppositions about the results. If anyone is definitively saying that having a dog around a baby makes that baby healthier, it’s the media (us) reporting it, not the scientists themselves.
Now, for the facts: the study observed almost 400 babies in Finland aged 9 weeks to 52 weeks. It found that there were lower rates of respiratory infectious symptoms — wheezing, cough, stuffy/runny nose, fever — in children in households with dogs than households without. Babies in such situations were also about 50% less likely to get ear infections.
There is a key to this: the babies had to spend time around the dogs, and the dogs had to spend at least some of their time outside. Households with cats were also included in the study, and though they still produced “healthier” babies than households without any pets, the rates were lower than in homes with dogs.
Those conducting the study did some research to rule out other factors that also might be detrimental to babies’ immune systems: not breastfeeding, having a smoker in the house, older siblings in the house, going to daycare, and more. In addition to helping keep the babies’ healthier, the research found that young children living in a home with a dog also, when they did need antibiotics, needed less rounds of them than children without dogs.
I’m always hesitant to assume many things from scientific studies, but I think we can maybe take a thing or two away from this. I think the key is that the dog needs to spend time outside: the dog brings in germs from outside, exposes the babies to them, and it actually helps develop the babies’ immune system. So parents of babies and dogs: don’t feel guilty. By being a pet-lover you might actually be helping to keep your child healthier.
Related Articles:
Why is My Toddler Afraid of Dogs?
Baby Aggression – How Do You Deal With it?
Pets Leaving Food: Should You Worry?
*(This image by Keith McDuffee is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 2.5 License.)
