Do we need to Wiessingerize the Discourse (so to speak)?  By which I mean, 
do we need to reframe the language, in order to reveal the core issues?

Do we need to recognise that individual mothers are put under immense 
pressures to both breastfeed, and to quit?  And that sometimes, with 
individual mothers, the immense pressures to quit - from social, emotional, 
medical, cultural issues - are so great, that if something does not give, 
the mother might?

Do we need to recognise, that sometimes the only person left to speak up for 
the dyad (for it needs to have a functioning mother) is the very person in 
the chain that knows what a huge thing is being given up?

I agree with both sides of the arguments, but recognise that each individual 
lactitioner (thanks Listmother Rachel, for that wonderful word) operates in 
a tangled weave of different support structures.  Some support structures 
may allow an individual to never need to give 'permission' as there is 
always something more to be done, more time to be given, more space for aid.

Some may not ever be in that position, and, stuck with an individual mother 
about to break, can only offer hope that there is a way out of the deadlock. 
  That's how I read both the examples given hear about permisison to quit - 
is that both practioners offered an option, opened a door that let the 
mother feel she'd been let out of the immense pressures crippling her.  
She'd been given hope.  She went into the consulting room locked in a 
terrible mangle of panic and fear and pressure, and left feeling a viable 
option had been given to her.  She wasn't looking for permission to quit  - 
she was looking from relief from the terrible burden about to break her 
open.

I feel that any mother who has tried to breastfeed, and not succeeded, is 
not a 'failure;  I feel she has been failed.    She's been failed by the 
people around her.  Sometimes we can think she buckled under pretty minor 
obstacles, compared to others we know who battled on past anything else 
anyone ever thought possible.  Who are we to judge their own internal world, 
and how they manage their own fears?  Have we walked in their shoes?  Will 
we be there in 5 years, 10 years, 20 years, to see the effect of our actions 
if we make it clear we think them weak?

Are we really not discussing how you balance professional duties when 
dealing with a mother who has been failed?

Do we make the decision to adhere strictly to the belief that failure isn't 
an option - no mattter how bad the pressures have been: something will break 
the deadlock and it's the lacitioners role to remain fast until that 
happens?

Or do we decide that sometimes, a mother has been failed so badly, the 
lactitioner can open the door to a less than perfect resolutuon and releive 
the mother of carrying the burden of the battle alone?

I'm only reframing the language - not suggesting an answer!

As I said, mothers are under extreme stress to give up in our society.  Do 
we blame the mother if she buckles?

Likewise, lactitioners's are under extreme stress to fight the pressures on 
the mother.  Do we blame the lactitioner, if the stress on the mother was 
too great for her to bear?

This does get to the crux of the issues on who you are there to support: 
mother, baby or dyad.  But just as debate on breastfeeding/formula and the 
'mother's choice' always leaves The Industry out of the equation - then so, 
in this one, is there a tendancy to leave The Culture out of the equation.  
Once more, it becomes a battle ground on one mother's supposed choices, as 
opposed to a single individual trying fight off the immense pressures 
crippling her.

I think there is a ghost in this debate. The ghost of all the 'imperfect' 
lacitioners out there who we see damaging mothers by being too quick to cave 
in on their behalf.  The ghost of the Dr who says "Sore nipples - don't 
bother, have formula it's just as good."  The ghost of the LC who says "I 
could see she wanted to give up, so I told her it was okay to give the 
formula".  We all know these people exist. Just like the ghost of "oh I did 
it once, and I'm not having that - get me a bottle." is also here.  If 
permsision is given to quit, are we feeding the ghosts?

What a day for mixed metaphors!  You should see the horrors I edited out!

I realise I've got a bit muddled, and hope my general meaning is clear.  My 
main point remains though: it isn't about mother's seeking permission to 
quit - not at the level being discussed in here.  It's about mothers seeking 
recognition that the burden on them is so huge, they feel utterly trapped.  
So the debate is actually about what options we feel it's then appropriate 
to put in their path, when the pressures are already so intolerable.

At what point do we feel it's appropriate, to recognise the mother has been 
failed so catagorically, that a sideways step may be the best option?

Hoping this helps... and doesn't further muddy the waters!

Morgan Gallagher
Online Lactaneer (as opposed to a lactitioner!)

_________________________________________________________________
Txt a lot? Get Messenger FREE on your mobile. 
https://livemessenger.mobile.uk.msn.com/

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

Archives: http://community.lsoft.com/archives/LACTNET.html
Mail all commands to [log in to unmask]
To temporarily stop your subscription: set lactnet nomail
To start it again: set lactnet mail (or [log in to unmask])
To unsubscribe: unsubscribe lactnet or ([log in to unmask])
To reach list owners: [log in to unmask]