Jan:  I'm sorry to hear about the grief that doctor gave you.  It's of
course ideal to have a prospective randomized double-blinded study
published in a respectable journal to back up medical practices.  But I
wonder how many of the procedures and practices which this same
pediatrician accepts and uses daily really stand up to such scrutiny.
Medicine is an art as much as it is a science, and we must make decisions
based not only on scientific proof but on weighing the pros and cons.
The likely risks of clipping a tongue-tie (when done by someone competent
in the procedure) are so low compared with the risks to both mother and
baby from having to abandon breastfeeding, that this is the real
consideration.
By the way, any of my fellow physicians want to look at just how many of
the common practices and procedures in our practices are really backed by
randomized, prospective double-blinded studies?  I've already suspected
that there aren't that many, and after reading the recent literature about
routine episiotomies I can see the need for constant re-evaluation of
things which have become so accepted.  I want to go on record that even
if we find that there is little based on ideally conducted research, this
would by no means be an indictment of the medical profession, but rather
an acknowledgement that much of our "science" really isn't, and that we
are constantly learning and re-evaluating things which we thought were
"written in stone".  Any thoughts?  Alicia.  [log in to unmask]