This horse is only going to stand for so much more beating before it begs
for mercy or death and then I will stop.  I promise!  Meanwhile, it is
soapbox time.  Luckily on Lactnet you can just skip to the next post if you
prefer. ;-)
Small breasts are rare here.  Norwegian women seem to be heavily endowed on
average.  Thus the C-hold is more functional, as scissor hold tends to be
too far out toward the nipple.  Holding the breast at all is only
recommended for women whose breasts are substantial enough to need it.

Sharon wrote: "I think what you are seeing is often instinctual with a lot
of moms, no matter what kind of "hold" they are using or have been taught.
They are trying to push as much of the breast as possible into the baby's
mouth..."

Leonard Righard and Margaret Alade of Sweden have done great work showing
the benefits of self-attachment at the baby's discretion for the first feed.
They observed that when babies were removed from physical contact with
mother's body before finding the breast and latching themselves, the mothers
tended to stuff the breast in the babies' mouths when they were returned to
them, after weighing/bathing/suturing mother or whatever.

If the mothers and babies were left undisturbed until the conclusion of the
4th stage of labor (my favorite term for time from birth of placenta to
first attachment at breast), nearly all the babies managed to latch well.
If they were removed AT ALL, and particularly if mother had received
pethidine (meperidine in US) during labor, the rate of incorrect, shallow
latch was much higher than the rate of good latch.

It seems what instinct told these mothers is that separation means there is
more urgency about getting the baby to breast, and they start stuffing
rather than letting baby do its part, because instinctual behavior is
vulnerable to the disturbances of institutional or cultural routines.  Once
we have intervened at all, we need to accept that there will be effects we
didn't intend.  Through studies like this one we can learn how to mitigate
such effects when separation is unavoidable: helping mother and baby take up
where they left off, giving mother our trust that they will figure it out
and it will go well, allowing for the effects of medication and intervention
to wear off before expecting baby to move on, and seeing to it that if
supplementation is needed during the waiting period, it is given in a way
that strengthens BF.  More importantly, we can learn not to separate them
routinely, or lightly.

The dramatic changes in size, color and consistency of the periareolar
tissue of a mother left undisturbed with her baby until first latch are not
just decorative or coincidental.  The breast is easier to find and to mount
if this process is allowed to unfold as it was meant to.  Very few hospitals
are organized in a way that makes this possible and many experienced
professionals will be unaware that babies are capable of self-attachment
because they have never had the chance to see it.

This is one of the many reasons I still jump at the chance to attend home
births.  It is a learning exercise about the culture of institutions.  It
becomes much clearer what is artifact and what is naturally occurring
behavior.  This makes it possible in theory to improve the institutional
environment.  Does anyone on Lactnet doubt the necessity of such
improvement?

             ***********************************************
The LACTNET mailing list is powered by L-Soft's renowned
LISTSERV(R) list management software together with L-Soft's LSMTP(TM)
mailer for lightning fast mail delivery. For more information, go to:
http://www.lsoft.com/LISTSERV-powered.html