>I must say I am disappointed to hear so many LCs are doing test weighs, and
>so casually!  Test weighing in some areas of Australia used to be the norm
>many years ago

I don't recall any poster indicating that test weights are done routinely or
casually.  Certainly in the hospital just after delivery, or for a baby who
is gaining well, there's absolutely no need to do test weights.  But if a
baby is seriously underweight at one or two weeks post-delivery, there's a
problem, no matter what the output seems to indicate.  Then a test weight can
be a valuable addition (*not* the sum total) to the overall picture.
Certainly no lactation consultant should base her interventions only on one
parameter, but just as surely, she shouldn't ignore a potentially helpful
tool.

>Also, I recall reading an article (sorry, the memory
>doesn't stretch to where from, but someone else may have it) where they test
>weighed bottle fed infants and found weighing to be an inaccurate method of
>determining intake.

I've checked our electronic scales repeatedly, as have our biomed people, and
have found them to be extremely accurate--to within two grams, as the company
claims.  And someone else has already mentioned Paula Meier's work, which
showed that nurses' perceptions of intake, based on observation alone, are
frequently way off base.

Again, we don't do test weights on every baby who comes into our clinic--they
are *not* a routine part of our exam.  But we do use them when the situation
warrrents it.  Perhaps in countries where babies aren't subjected to so much
medication during labor, where women are allowed / encouraged to deliver in a
more natural fashion than they are here in the US,  there's much less reason
to do test weights.  But, in our clinic, they are a useful procedure for
selected mother / baby couples.

Judy Dunlap, RNC, BA, IBCLC