I just feel the need to add a reminder to this discussion: The not doing
scheduling does not have to equal "chaos", and not doing 100% demand feeding
does not have to equal "scheduling".

One of the really sad bits of fallout from the Babywise storm is the
acceptance of an idea that there are [only] two ways of feeding a baby, and
that they are polar opposites. The Ezzos deal with the criticism of their
schedule by inventing the modified term, "flexible schedule". Sounds great,
doesn't it? I could go with that if only I didn't know what they really
mean...... and what they really mean by "flexible" is that you don't
permanently flex, you just flex temporarily with the goal of returning to
the Parental Feeding Plan asap. It is that long term goal and mindset, and
not the short term strategy, that is problematic both for feeding and
psychological issues.

When it comes to multiples, it surely makes sense that you'd want to monitor
them all carefully to make sure each is getting fed often enough; the
propensity to forget one is great. This is generally accomplished by
tracking with some kind of chart and making sure the babies feed often
enough. If the best way to do this means feeding them all at approximately
the same time, that's okay, so long as we aren't delaying the feeding of a
hungry baby; I can live with that kind of "schedule".

Please keep in mind-- let's not misrepresent demand feeding as precluding
any kind of schedule or routine, because otherwise we may unwittingly push
parents over to the "other side", the one they are being told is the only
way to survive.

Lisa Marasco, BA, IBCLC