First, I apologise for beginning a discussion that has resulted in the
promotion of certain brands artificial infant feeding paraphernalia. That
was not my intention.
Second, I understand that feeding bottles can be a useful tool for ensuring
that we meet rule number one (feed the baby). And I understand that in many
settings bottles have been introduced well before an LC becomes involved.
(I am not questioning the value of the tool, I just want to know more about
this particular application of it.)  
My educational background condemns me to a life of examining the assumptions
and expectations that underlie many common actions. Please don't hear
condemnation in my question. My aim is to start a discussion - and I am
pleased to see that we are discussing this.
My next question is, has anyone done or seen ultrasounds of bottlefeeding
and compared them to breastfeeding?  This would make an interesting study, I
think.
I would alsoo like to suggest that a mother who comments that a baby takes
just as long to feed at a bottle as s/he does at the breast reveals that she
(the mother) has an underlying assumption that all (normal) babies can
bottlefeed but not all babies can breastfeed.  She thinks that breastfeeding
is more complicated, more fragile and less reliable.  By using a bottle to
assess a suck, aren't we, in fact asking "Is this a feeding problem or a
*breast*feeding problem?"  Don't we risk joining the mother in her
assumptions?  How do we avoid this?
Nina Berry BA/Bed(Hons) Dip Arts(Phil)
Breastfeeding Counsellor
PhD Candidate - "Ethical Issues in the marketing of 'Toddler Milks'"

             ***********************************************

To temporarily stop your subscription: set lactnet nomail
To start it again: set lactnet mail (or digest)
To unsubscribe: unsubscribe lactnet
All commands go to [log in to unmask]

The LACTNET email list is powered by LISTSERV (R).
There is only one LISTSERV. To learn more, visit:
http://www.lsoft.com/LISTSERV-powered.html