Dr. Vaughan has been quoted several times about this statement:

 "the issue the researchers had
identified in their unit was that mothers whose babies were losing a lot of
weight were more likely to become disillusioned with breastfeeding and turn
to supplementation or give up altogether, despite health staff's best
efforts to persuade them otherwise."

And several LACTNETERS have pointed out that a 5% weight loss, or even up to 10% may be innappropriately arbitrary for intervention of any kind other than breastfeeding support and encouragement.  Some have suggested the intervention in the "study" was not ethical.  I myself and others pointed out that the syringe feeds will have minimized the harm that the intervention might have caused otherwise.

But I am going to ask point blank:  Who actually believes that the babies in the study were "losing a lot of weight?"  And who says the mothers were "likely to become disillusioned" because of it?

Were they?  Or was this a sham?    As lactation consultants, I doubt many of us would have any problem Feeding the Baby, if the baby was indeed in need of calories, STAT.   Would we take Feed the Baby action at 5%?  Highly unlikely.  At 10%?  Probably not, unless we would see lethargy, etc.  So how can this excuse so blithely be accepted as appropriate- "the babies were losing a lot of weight."  No, they were not.  I want to know why that belief is allowed to sit out there so unchallenged.  Or, was that part of the purpose of the "study" in the first place?  Define the terms and win the war?  

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

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