Mime-Version: |
1.0 (Apple Message framework v936) |
Content-Type: |
text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed; delsp=yes |
Date: |
Wed, 22 Sep 2010 08:59:35 +0800 |
Reply-To: |
|
Subject: |
|
From: |
|
Message-ID: |
|
In-Reply-To: |
|
Content-Transfer-Encoding: |
7bit |
Sender: |
|
Parts/Attachments: |
|
|
I always found this odd. Everyone was telling me to introduce a
bottle in case I had to be away, or to send bub to daycare so she
would get used to being away from me if needed. I couldn't work out
why I should traumatise my baby or risk breastfeeding on the off
chance that it might be necessary. If I needed to be apart from bub
then the trauma would be needed, but not very likely to happen, while
it would certainly happen if I sent bub to day care, or introduced
bottles just in case. Why make a possibility into a certaintly?
Jenny
Jenny Doncon
Breastfeeding Counsellor, IBCLC, Australia
(read my expressing story here: http://www.lrc.asn.au/forum/viewtopic.php?t=41257
and my weaning diary here http://www.lrc.asn.au/forum/viewtopic.php?t=40015)
On 22/09/2010, at 12:44 AM, Mary Wagner-Davis wrote:
> <However, the one motivation for
> bottlefeeding that seems hardest to shake is the fear that something
> would
> happen to make mom unexpectedly and temporarily or permanently
> unavailable,
> and baby would go hungry. It's hard to reason with this very primal
> fear of
> leaving your baby unprovided for. I see that as another target for
> education and cultural change so that babies do not end up getting
> bottles
> just for insurance.>
>
***********************************************
Archives: http://community.lsoft.com/archives/LACTNET.html
To reach list owners: [log in to unmask]
Mail all list management commands to: [log in to unmask]
COMMANDS:
1. To temporarily stop your subscription write in the body of an email: set lactnet nomail
2. To start it again: set lactnet mail
3. To unsubscribe: unsubscribe lactnet
4. To get a comprehensive list of rules and directions: get lactnet welcome
|
|
|