Esther writes:
"I have to start giving prenatal courses in infant behavior when
separated from mother. "
Exactly.
Every hospital has its own protocol, but I have yet to hear of one that
is friendly to the biological norm. Everyone is trying to minimize risk
(at least evryone on Lactnet), but the frame of reference is the most
agregious interventionist birth possible. Everyone wants to do better
than that and that is certainly a good thing. But, it is like comparing
AIM's to one another. We only see their true nature when we compare
them to breastfeeding (not to breastmilk). In the healthy newborn, any
intervention in the early hours after birth poses a risk, whether it is
weighing, suctioning, premature clamping of the cord, measuring,
adminstering drops or shots or bathing (I know I loved the smell of my
babies after birth and had no desire to have it washed off--once it is
gone, it is gone forever, except in our memories--why the rush?)
Whether they are done in one hour or two is irrelevent if they
interfere with bonding, breastfeeding or the mother's confidence.
Also, I think discussion about how some things just cannot be avoided
at birth and birth doesn't always go the way we like is being applied
wrongly here. I don't think we can talk about the things that we
believe cannot be avoided at birth until we consider our frame of
reference. If unhealthy, stressed pregnanies, medicated births and
poor attachment are our frame of reference, then we will continue to
miss the whole point. For, example, posterior babies can indeed be
avoided when mothers know how. Many of the odd, stuck positions that
babies get into have been associated by trauma experts as response to
stress. Healthy pregnancies are certainly possible. Almost all medical
interventions are completely unecessary and reaching out to the few
very rare necessary cases as a way to justify the others is a poor way
to make an argument.
If most interventions are unecessary and most interventions cause risk,
why are most babies still subjected to them without so much as a second
thought? I would argue that it is b/c even those of us who advocate
truly for breastfeeding have forgotten what the biological norm looks
like, if we have even ever seen it. What we all see every day are
babies coping with stress, not babies simply being babies. Unless we
have seen uninterrupted birth and bonding, we do not know how babies
are meant to behave and unless we know how babies are meant to behave
(and mothers of those babies), aren't we just going in circles? We
continue to apply a discussion of what is normal to a situation that
cannot allow for normal. How in the world we minimize risk in such an
environment is beyond me.
We are so clealry able to agree that you cannot compare the behaviour
of a breastfed baby to that of an artificially-fed baby, because we
have all invested in that argument. It is just as obvious to me that we
cannot compare a baby born in a hospital to a baby born at home and
that only the baby born at home has any hope of truly reflecting the
biological norm (although the hospital-born baby certainly does reflect
biologically normal stress and coping behaviors). Most of us are not
able to personally invest in that argument, though, so we ignore its
implications. Until we do, I suggest that the other arguments are all
just an effort in futility.
Jennifer Tow, IBCLC, CT, USA
***********************************************
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 mailing list is powered by L-Soft's renowned
LISTSERV(R) list management software together with L-Soft's LSMTP(R)
mailer for lightning fast mail delivery. For more information, go to:
http://www.lsoft.com/LISTSERV-powered.html
|