Deanne has chosen some pretty shaky examples to demonstrate the superiority
of doctor-led recommendations.


>Yes, I deal with two pediatricians who reject the idea that breast milk is
>any better than formula.  But is that any different than the mother who
>can't see that a Vitamin K shot is harmless

Yes, it is totally different.  A paediatrician rejecting the idea of the
superiority of breast milk shows a wilful disregard of mountains of
research. A mother refusing the Vitamin K shot is deciding that the very
small risk of a healthy, term bf baby having HDN is small enough to weigh
against the unknown long term effects of Vit K injection - and that's her
right and her baby. Personally, my babies had the Vit K injection as I felt
the small risk of their being long term effects of it was worth it. But
that was my decision for my baby.
>
>Is it any different than the mother who is informed that takaing folic acid
>may help prevent some really awful neural tube defects, but she refuses to
>take it anyway?  Should the doctor choose not to tell her this because she
>might feel "guilty' if her baby then has a myelomeningocele?

Of course the doctor tells her. And then she decides. The folic acid thing
is not hugely convincing, if you look at the research. One study showed if
it was effective,  it was effective because it increased the liklihood of
the mother miscarrying an affected fetus.

 WE object when
>a doctor withholds correct information on  breastfeeding, or refuses to
>accept the information we so carefully present to him, so why do we object
>when the doctor  gives US the best evidence-based information he has in
>other areas?  We may not agree, but he/she is obligated to do that, the same
>as we are.

Nobody objects to the doctor giving evidence-based information.  The
problem with bf is that doctors may not give it...and may give info that is
incorrect and which sabotages the bf.
>

>Example:  We had a baby come into our nursery with a glucose of 6, having
>seizures, etc.  The baby was born at home to one of our granny midwives, who
>was having her 9th baby.   By the time we saw the baby, this poor little kid
>was in bad trouble.  She threatened to sue the hospital if it got out that
>her baby required intensive care, and she is still telling all her clients
>that she has "never had a complication in several thousand deliveries."
>
>I know of at least 11 of the babies she has delivered who ended up in our
>intensive care unit with preventable problems.  Her own child has serious
>residual damage from the disaster that happened at home.  It was completely
>preventable.

If you are concerned that someone is  practising unsafely, are you not
obliged to take measures to have this investigated?
>
>I, personally, would never choose to have a home delivery.  I think they are
>for pizza.  Had I delivered my third child (of 6) at home, both of us would
>have died.   However, I respect those of you who choose to advocate it or do
>it, as long as you know what kind of Russian roulette you are playing

The phraseology you use is not respectful, Deanne.

I do not know stats for home birth in the US but the official  figures we
have in the UK show that midwife-supported home birth is as safe as
hospital birth, and certainly produces a higher level of consumer
satisfaction.

Heather Welford Neil
NCT bfc Newcastle upon Tyne UK

             ***********************************************
The LACTNET mailing list is powered by L-Soft's renowned
LISTSERV(R) list management software together with L-Soft's LSMTP(TM)
mailer for lightning fast mail delivery. For more information, go to:
http://www.lsoft.com/LISTSERV-powered.html