the soapbox beckons, so am climbing on...

I agree with K. Dettwyler in disliking the term non-nutritive suckling.  To
my mind, it categorizes in a way that implies the breast is not always good
for making/giving milk. I belive this feeds right into the fears of mothers
who also have been taught that the breast is sometimes EMPTY and other
times FULL but when one cannot feel the milk, one will never know and what
(egads!) if the baby wants to feed/nurse again in 45 minutes, 1 hr, 2 hrs,
etc. (you pick the time before she is "filled up" again).

When helping mothers to udnerstand that breastfeeding satsifies all manner
of needs, I tell her that the baby sometimes feeds rapidly and lots of milk
is availalbe quite easily (remember how the breast on the other side
leaked/spsrayed the baby in the face, etc.) while at other times the milk
is there is much small dribs and drabs, perfect for a snack (bedtime or
elsewhere!) or just a wetting the whistle or just a taste of something
sweet and warm, etc. This is accompanied by far less swallowing but is no
less improtant to the baby for obtaining comfort.  Furthermore, this
explanation makes clear that the breast is never EMPTY of milk.  Is it
non-nutritive? No.  The milk is always a source of nutrition.  But the
breast is also always a source of comfort and closeness and that is JUST as
important as the calorie-rich substance, too.

Am losing oxygen..
                        ...

                                        ...

                                                .
                                                .
                                                  ...  next




Def. of LC service: "We are all faced with a series of great opportunities
brilliantly disguised as impossible situations."
Kathleen G. Auerbach,PhD, IBCLC (Homewood, IL)- [log in to unmask]
WEB PAGE: http://www.mcs.com/~auerbach/lactation.html