To breastfeed is to help the baby and the mother form an attachment,
rather mom realizes  it is happening or not.  I promote skin to skin,
another way to promote attachment.  I explain the research behind the
baby's need for touch, the need for contact, the reasons we do not
'let the baby cry' because 'you can't just give them what they want or
they will never learn they can't get what they want with crying'. or a
multitude of other interesting thoughts about how dangerous it is for
the baby to be held for any reason other than feeding.  Why?  Because
to breastfeed easily, following the baby's cues is a must.  The idea
that all women and all babies do fine being on a set plan of action
that revolves around a parent's world is not always the best choice
for a long term breastfeeding relationship.  Now, if I just want her
to feed her milk for a few months, how we do it matters much less.  I
find that most moms (in my corner of the USA) are happy to do what the
baby "needs" but not necessarily what the baby "wants".  And, as soon
as they understand that "need" is real, they no longer find the baby
to be demanding or hard to care for.  Perspective is everything,
change an attitude and you change a baby's care!  Do I suggest that
this can only be done with specific tools? No way.  I share the
knowledge of the baby's behavior being normal, I share the information
and the research behind the ideas of baby's needs being met, etc. and
the mother is free to use whatever tools and behaviors work for her.
Does it mean cosleeping?  No, but we do know based on research that
her baby belongs in the same room...not for attachment, but for
survival if at risk for SIDS.  Just like we know smoking is not good,
and we encourage mothers to quit smoking while pregnant, to not smoke
in the house, etc.  Sharing information will not make them quit
smoking, that's a choice, but to not share information is unethical.

Do I believe you can breastfeed in a way that is not about attaching?
Absolutely, a mom can breastfeed and be 'detached', but her baby will
be less likely to suffer the consequences of that detachment behavior
if being breastfed.  If being bottle fed, it will be very easy to
completely separate herself from her baby and her baby's needs.
Breastfeeding requires what the baby needs...skin to skin, to be held,
to be close to mother and the behavior of breastfeeding by the baby
can offset the detached attitude and behavior of the mother in other
areas. (Or, maybe this is just my hope for the emotional stability and
security of the child.) I also know babies can be very very very well
bonded and attached without breastfeeding!  Thank goodness!  Touch,
skin to skin, resopnsiveness, being close to mother, etc. are all a
part of breastfeeding, and so together make attachment behavior easier
for mother (baby already knows what needs to be done, and asks for it,
mom needs to be willing) .  The difference for the non breastfeeding
mom is the conscious choice to provide these behaviors in absence of
the breastfeeding and the hormone driven behavior.

I think that the baby expects the breastfeeding and care to come from
mother. Of course, how can we even know this since each chid is
unique?  We can't raise the same child with more time with mother as
well as more time in other care...so really, this is more opinion than
science I suppose. In my area babes are in day care at 6 weeks old,
and spend 10 -12 hrs a day there.  They are one of four babies to one
adult and spend more time in a crib than not.  Day care worders
overfeed breastmilk because they want the baby to sleep more and
longer and moms struggle to maintain their milk supply and often quit
from the exhaustion of what it means to pump at work, and then
breastfeed at home, etc.  It is just easier for the mother to use
formula, to sleep train for the full night of 8 plus hours of sleep,
and to accept her fate as good for her baby and good for her.  And to
encourage this practice we have the attitude in the USA that day care
is good for babies and mothers should feel no guilt about leaving
their baby and getting on with their real lives.

Major parenting  organizations promote that while a baby needs mother,
really, she can be replaced by another care provider who goes through
the same motions, and if the organization is about breastfeeding
pumping accomplishes the goal of breast milk fed.  I guess babies
cannot tell the difference between the mother care and other care.
What we have is a baby who spends about 4 waking hours with a parent.
From crib, to car, to day care crib, to car, to busy mom and dad
trying to do what needs to be done at home, to crib again.  But, as my
mom would say, in comparision to a life on the streets starving or
left to die in an orphanage they live the life of queens and kings and
the world's children should be so lucky!  (Her comment to me when I
bemoan the fact that my little great niece spent her first years of
life in a crib or a car seat on her way from one to the other.)

Don't we all have our own vision of what the best life for a baby
would be like?   I know I have this vision..Zero spearation from birth
to a few months, the most minimal separation until one year....meaning
you shower alone, haha, or the baby can sleep on a separate surface
near you, but not in another room.  And, from one year to three years
limited separation continues but with longer absences while the child
enjoys the care of other loving family members or care providers who
understand the needs of the child, but not too long. Then from three
through the early years the continued presence of parents and family
and care providers they trust and who care for them wtih love, and
then off to school where all the teachers show respect for the dignity
of the child.  And through all of this, breastfeeding until child led
weaning, appropriate nutritious foods, kind and gentle guidance, etc
etc etc.  You know, perfection. Of course, perfection usually
unattainable for the average human.and in some areas of the world
non-existant.  Still, I like to think of that perfect life for babies
as at least an ideal...something to work towards so we at least work
towards the best it can be.  If we fall short of perfection, we don't
land too far off the mark, but if we figure nothing matters and babies
are resilient and survive the worst of circumstances---like those of
us who survived being fed evaporated milk and water instead of being
breastfed---then we have nothing to hold up as a model of what is best
for the fullest possible potential. Falling short of nothing lands us
with the worst hope for our future.  I know my own cultural bias plays
into my idea of the perfect life of a child and even knowing this, I
still think it would be the lucky baby who receieved all that was
perfect.  My vision may be very different from another's, and i know
this too.

The argument about what is the 'best' of parenting is no different
from the argument of 'what is best' for childbirth and well, what is
"best" for feeding.  In the same way I consider how 'attached' is
'good' and how to define that, others consider how to help the baby
learn to be detached and independent from birth is the good thing for
babies.  I see normal birth with only medical necessary interventions
as the best for babies, and others determine a cesarean birth to be
the safest for every mother and baby.  I think breastfeeding is every
baby's birthright and mothers should be told the truth that their
choice is a lifetime health decision for their baby and others
strongly believe that formula is an improvement over our contaminant
filled mother's milk which at the same time frees women from the
drudgery of their bodily function.  It all goes back to what we choose
to accept as sound research, what we want to believe is right.

  When it comes to what is "normal" or "best" for babies, it is not
always the baby being considered.  Adults' desires, wants, needs, seem
to come in to the picture as if those are equal to the needs of a
baby.  It is the adults who will need to "choose" the behavior that is
"best" or "normal" and try to find a balance they can live with, and
well, I think often the balance is rarely on the side of the baby
because societies tend to focus more on the needs of those with a
voice. I wonder how much of what we say is 'good' is about what is
best for maternal guilt?  What if the truth is that baby's need to be
with their mothers, not want it, but need it? What if all the talk of
baby doing very well wtih 'any' loving care provider is not true, and
we cannot ever see that because we cannot compare that one baby to
himself!  What if what we are seeing is indeed not that child's
fullest potential, but only what the child has adapted to become based
on the absence of mother?  What does that say to mothers who
choose/must not be there?  Does not that create the same issues for
them as it does for the mother who won't/can't breastfeeding?  How
much of what we portray as 'best' is about what is best for the adults
and how much is really about what is best for the baby?  And, what if
at the end of the day, none of it really matters...not how we feed
them, not how we care for them, nothing.  Babies just are babies and
grow into adults regardless of how we raise them or what we feed them
or what we do.  What part of what we do is because it 'feels' right,
and how much is what we do because we are told it is right.  I don't
know the answer, only what I interpret from research I have read and
what 'feels' intuitively 'right' for my children.

As a lactation consultant, I cannot separate the act of breastfeeding
from the milk. It is both.  And one creates attachment more easily
than the other.  I want to be that baby's voice whenever I can and
while I will respect the balance, I give much more weight to the needs
of the baby. I think that the baby has as much right as the mother to
get what he or she needs - maybe even more because of dependence on
the choices of another.  I don't really call it AP, I just call it
being a mother who does what her baby needs.  API is not even about
mothering really, it is about child care and how to do it gently and
reading API website leads me to believe they also see the mother care
being substituted by equal other care makes no difference to the
child.  Like I said, maybe it really does not matter all that much and
the adaptation is good for children. I mean, just because it is the
mother who gives birth and it is the mother who makes the milk is not
really proof that the baby actually 'needs' her to reach full
potential. "Attachment behavior" can be done by anyone.  Maybe the
baby does not care who does it after all, and well, what a waste my
life has been. haha.  I guess it depends on the culture you live in
and what you see as 'good' for outcome.  This is the reason parents
love Ezzo and Baby Whisperer.  They like the outcome.  Obedient,
quiet, 'good' children and a full night's sleep.  The cost? Maybe
there is not one.  Maybe all that matters is outcome.Like birth.  All
that matters is outcome.  Like feeding. All that matters is outcome.
Define good outcome?

Best,
Pam MazzellaDiBosco, IBCLC, RLC
A mom who often wonders if it was all worth the work and effort to do
it 'right' when she still has one child with a serious auto-immune
disease while her sister's kids who were bottle fed formula, cereal
fed at day 3, baby food fed by day 14, and never even held for those
feedings that were given in a plunger style bottle propped in their
cribs are all perfectly healthy with absolutely zero health
conditions...and yep, they are all adults now with children of their
own.

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

Archives: http://community.lsoft.com/archives/LACTNET.html
To reach list owners: [log in to unmask]
Mail all list management commands to: [log in to unmask]
COMMANDS:
1. To temporarily stop your subscription write in the body of an email: set lactnet nomail
2. To start it again: set lactnet mail
3. To unsubscribe: unsubscribe lactnet
4. To get a comprehensive list of rules and directions: get lactnet welcome