Dear Joy

I like your reply.


Many  babies  tested at birth prior to feeding (remember that I worked in
the diabetic specialist ward at the RWH in charge for over a year) in a
trial were found to be hypoglycaemic ie below 2mmols.  My point is that
these readings of 2.6 mmols [WHO]are artificially high and too
conservative. I believe that hypoglycaemia is a natural event for all
newborn babies.

Too many so called hypoglycaemic babies are "treated" with formulae or
glucose separated from their mothers  {I am not naming hospitals on this
missive but have done privately to Joy] and colostrum denied the baby due
to apathy of staff and lack of access to mother to the baby.

My reading of Lawrence and Riordan and Auerbach reveals that colostrum of
some diabetic women is higher in glucose than normal healthy women.  But
this high glucose level is not sufficient to correct the true (arterial
blood sample not dextrostix) hypoglycaemia of the infant of the diabetic
mother.  However the combination of glucose fat and protein in breastmilk
is absolutely better than any formulae.  The benefit to the mother of
reduced need for Insulin due to breastfeeding is an added bonus.

I believe many midwives have intervened as you have and things are slightly
better in some places until you meet the "odd" paediatrician as you
describe.
I think that even at risk babies should receive breast milk and not be
isolated I don't agree with WHO conservative readings of 2.6 mmols

Normal healthy newborns are not normally routinely tested in Victorian
Hospitals to my knowledge  except when it is done for research purposes as
I outlined above.

I agree with Kahlid in that below 2mmols is a good baseline to work from.

Beverley Walker

Jack Newman has given me the address on how to get the WHO article.