We have discussed this at great length in the past.  I am sure there  is much 
you can read in the archives.  Unlike the majority of those  who sing  the 
praises of this technique, I am not so impressed. Perhaps my  bias is partially 
because I am always a bit bothered when what has been ancient  mother wisdom 
belonging to women becomes a man's best seller and you need  to become a 
certified trainer to teach a baby to be calmed, but such is the  American Way.  I 
share my dislike for the marketing so you know it may  cloud my judgment of this 
miracle cure for a baby's crying that he  discovered.  I do not like the arms 
at the side swaddling.  Yes, there  is 4th trimester and mimicking the womb 
makes sense. Haven't we all said  that for years?  Long before he figured out 
he discovered it.  But,  after many ultrasound pictures, I have yet to see a 
baby with arms strapped to  sides.  I have no problem with swaddling and 
comforting a baby with their  hands near the face for feeding signals and comfort.  I 
don't like the idea  that losing freedom of movement of their arms makes them 
'turn on a reflex' or  the interpretation of the shutting down as a calming 
behavior when it could just  as likely be a stress response. Babies shut down 
for a lot of reasons, and  calming is not the only one. Shut down happens in 
response to stress too.  Personally, I think it would feel very stressful to 
have my arms forcefully kept  in a place that does not feel natural. 
 
 The comment "it works" doesn't mean much to me because many things  "work" 
but are not necessarily the best thing for a baby.  Crying it out  does train a 
baby to sleep for instance, formula makes a baby sleep longer for  instance, 
pacifiers stretch out the length of time between feedings, etc.   Heck, Gary 
Ezzo's style of baby care works too.  Many things 'work' but  that does not 
equate with 'best for baby'.  Dr. Karp's book gets great  welcomes from the 
people who expect long stretches of alone time from a sleeping  baby.  I have heard 
many mothers tell me "oh, but if I don't keep him  swaddled this way he wants 
to be held and on the breast more often:"  A way  to quickly calm a baby who 
has become disorganized and needs a bit of help to  start over should not have 
become a way to keep them quiet and sleeping for  hours on end so they feed 
less and sleep more.  Breastmilk is digested in  less than two hours.  Why 
would we want to encourage longer sleep stretches  when babies need to be fed more 
often?  The way he forces a baby to accept  a  pacifier even when the baby is 
signaling no thank you bothers me.   The way he teaches how to put a baby in 
a swing so you don't have to hold the  baby bothers me.  The way he considers 
longer sleep stretches for a  breastfed baby bothers me. That means the baby 
comes to breast not just  interested in eating but really very hungry.  This 
does not seem fair to  the baby...to have no ability to signal for feeding, to 
have to wait to be fed  longer than he would likely choose because his hands 
are swaddled tight and a  pacifier is in his mouth.  Hunger cues can easily be 
missed.  Also,  the breast and the comfort of mother is more than food.  I 
think his book  is exactly what most parents want....a task completed, a baby 
down, and their  freedom from the care of the baby for as long as possible. 
Nothing new...quiet  and down is a good baby.  I thought we had moved beyond that 
thought  process?
 
I do not doubt that Dr. Karp believes whole heartedly that the best thing  
for a baby is to lie quiet and sleep for hours and suck on their binky and swing 
 in their swing, etc. I assume his intent is see mothers and fathers  find a 
way to quiet their crying babies.  I just think the best place for a  baby is 
in a human's arms, on a human's body, and suckling at a mother's breast  at 
will. I have no issue with short moments of swaddling for the calming as long  
as the hands are freed and the baby has the freedom to wake himself up or 
signal  for a feeding without crying.  I admit I would rather see a baby shut down  
to being straight-jacketed than scream alone in a crib or be abused.   On the 
other hand, I also think most of our colic and fussy babies are symptoms  
that should be addressed and not just shut down.  I say this as a mom of  two 
fussy colicky babies who looking back on it could have used a good  chiropractor 
and some cst.  Wish I knew then what I know now. I do swaddle  my little ones 
lightly so they can choose to be free so I am not of the notion  that 
swaddling is horrible.  Just like I said, hands down with no freedom  to get them 
free, no matter how quick a baby shuts down because of it does not  seem 
natural...and if it is not natural how can it be a 'reflex'?  Just the  words 'calming 
reflex' do not set well with me.
 
Yes, I absolutely know I am in the minority.  I accept that.   Don't really 
care if the world thinks this book is the answer to every baby's  cry.  It's 
always good to have a dissenting view.
 
Take care,
Pam MazzellaDiBosco, IBCLC, RLC

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

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