In response, reaction etc to Judy's remarks and suggestions about lifestyle
changes, repression etc, there are a couple of things I can't resist
mentioning. One is the phenomenon described by a counsellor who works with
women who utilise reproductive technologies to get their 'dream' babies.  He
relates the high incidence of post natal depression amongst those women who
have a successful "take home baby" result of reproductive technology (I've
forgotten the exact figure of the particular clinic about 15% all up) to the
"loss of the infertile couple syndrome" - the loss of attention, drama and
status conferred with this state and the often harsh, unrelenting reality of
a baby - mixed with the joy, of course and the paradox it creates.  The
other is that over the last week, I have been with two women who are both
about 5 months post natal and who have been in a psych unit a lot of this
time.  One has schizophrenia, the other has a bipolar disorder.  Both, by
the way are breastfeeding successfully and it is totally expected that they
would do so, the woman with schizophrenia was encouraged to reestablish
lactation.   I was discussing the experience of hospital and the labelling
of her behaviour/disorder tonight with the woman with the bipolar disorder.
She has been diagnosed for about six years. Very intelligent, creative and
articulate woman. She told me that she has had many extremely difficult
emotionally traumatic episodes in her life and that the 'veneer of coping
had worn thin in places'.  She told me that she thought that it was to do
with the chronic and relentless levels of (dis)stress in her life. (my
bracketed prefix).  she said that the ongoing stress level caused a chemical
imbalance which upset everything else. She talked about the reality of
women's lives in this world, the constantly changing, unrealistic demands
and the pressures.  The need to be it all and the impossibility of it.
Thought it was an interesting perspective.  I am fervent about true health
care needing to adopt the primary health care model as the basis for its
philosophy.  we can no longer justify the use of the very limited "illness
and death" rather than "health" orientation of the medical model.  Until we,
as health professionals, explore the social, cultural, political,
environmental, psychological and EMOTIONAL aspects of each person we work
with, whoops, also spiritual...as well as the physical, we are missing
something, something probably incredibly important. Women's experience and
reality is contextual.  Just look at the studies (Oakley et al 1996) which
show, seven years down the track, that the babies of women and the women
themselves,  who get social support are healthier, happier and more
contented than those that don't.

I'm just feeling a bit miffed.  I've just come home, you see, from my shift
and I had been rocking one of the babies to sleep.  The mother was nackered
and I was happy to do it. Nothing nicer than a sweet babe. One of the nurses
asked me, quite rudely I thought, why I was doing it.  And kinda demanded I
get the woman up to look after her baby.  The babies don't room in because
of the illnesses and the stage the women are at.  "The thing" being that the
women have to do everything for the babies.  I certainly have no issue with
the mother being the primary care giver.  I also am constantly amazed at the
way that mental health is assessed by whether the mother does 'everything'
and the expectation, even admonition that they will. In other societies,
babies are handed around to all the aunts and sisters etc, giving mothers
much needed time out.  In Bali, for example, the support there is such that
there is a grounding ceremony at six months when a baby is put on the ground
by itself for the first time. A mother is not expected to do it all.  Why do
we have this underground hostility about kindness. Surely we can be kind
without taking over and diminishing the confidence of mothers?  It reminds
me of that nursing model of 'self care' which all too often translates as
'no care', even though I know that isn't what the theorist intended. Hope
this all makes sense, apologies for the length.
Off my soapbox. warm regards, Carolyn.