I appreciated the inclusion of the text of Dr.
Neifert's anaylsis of insufficient milk syndrome, because I think it clarifies
the misconceptions about the much maligned and really misquoted 5% figure.
I was particularly glad to see her include the observation that lactation is an
"elective" body function. In other words, when the organism is
severely compromised, the body sometimes elects not to lactate. There are
physical reasons for this sometimes, and I suspect, the potential for severe
psychological conditions to also impact this function.
I believe this relates again to the issue of
using guilt to control or manipulate human behavior. We cannot know and
have no right to judge all the details of the lives of the women we serve. When
people are controlled by guilt they respond by feeling shame. This is not
empowering. It is destructive and always invites backlash. The truth
of the human condition is that people OFTEN make choices based on how they FEEL,
not on what they KNOW. Or do things because they feel they don't know any other
way. That is why we ourselves often fail to do the good we know we should
do, and so often hold onto self-destructive behavior (to paraphrase St.
Paul.) Our job is to be as smart as we can about our craft and our
science, and to do our work with acceptance of the mother as the first order in
the establishment of the relationship. I can't help someone I
despise. All these mothers who aren't "doing it right"
want to be good mothers. Many of them are just so wounded they don't know
how. You can't THINK yourself out of that place. You ACT yourself
out of that place and become someone who can be a good mother. How?
By following the lead of someone who loves you enough to believe you have the
capacity to grow, and is willing to patiently teach you some new
behaviors.
Example: I saw a mom yest. second baby,
second time working with me. She had a lot of ambivalence 1st time, but
nursed 4 months. Wanted to do more this time, but called in tears about
wanting to wean a "difficult" colicky baby. Saw the 4 wk old
girl yest. She has an irritating cry and cries a lot.
Mom was saying so many negative things about her experience that I decided the
real issues might be psychological. I invited her to tell me about her
preg. She reported a virus, extended nausea, a back injury, and then a
primary herpes infection which made her very ill. I didn't ask how she got
that, but it must have been awful and stressful. So if we accept Phillip
Zeskind's work about pre-natal factors producing babies with different pitched
cries, and those cries contributing to higher incidences of child abuse -- the
viscious cycle of the human condition perpetuating grief in families -- then
here we have a wounded mother, and an at-risk baby. My client was not bad
for wanting to quit, for not liking the baby. As we talked, she was
able to see how her own distress had perhaps created distress for the
baby. As soon as she could see the baby was uncomfortable, not just
annoying, she made an empathetic connection. Then she could kick into the mode
of trying to figure out how to help make things better for the both of them, and
was able to respond to my suggestions without all the "yes
buts..."
So my point in this long tale is we are only
human too, and have our own passions . But for the sake of the job we are
charged to do, let's not be ruled by emotion and dogmatism. Let's be known
as creative and non-judgemental, and, as scientists, be open to consider
the work of people who say things which at first seem to run counter to
our belief systems.
Barbara
Barbara