Kathleen B replied to my post re objective data:

>Judy, I agreewith you that lactation consultants need firm research to back
>up techniques and practices. What I find most interesting however, is the
>fact that other health professionals sometimes do not feel this need..

Kathleen, I thought, after I hit the send button, I should have mentioned
that most physicians also rely entirely too much on ritual and what they
remember from med school a hundred years ago, without anything to back them
up, but that doesn't alter the fact that objective data can be helpful.  And
the truth is, we all love to hear those researchers (i.e., James
McKenna--isn't he wonderful!) who can show us proof that what we believe in
our hearts is true.

>I remember Jack Newman saying that although research is a good
thing,....none
>of us should bow down to the God of the double bind study.

You're absolutely right. I don't think we should have blind faith in
scientific evidence any more than in our intuition.  Any study may be
disproven the day after it's published by someone else's study.  And it
certainly behooves all of us to know how to read studies with a critical eye
for strengths and weaknesses before we incorporate the results into practice.
 Then, too, even if a study is determined to be valid, studies look at groups
of people, not at individuals, so there's always a need for flexiblity and
sensitivity in applying the results to a particular client.  LC's practice an
art at least as much as a science.

>Breastfeeding
>needs no defense.  (I get tired of providing it also....can you tell ? : )
>.Amen....

And amen.

Judy D in WV (a pragmatic foot soldier in the battle for breastfeeding,  who
seldom wanders into the realm of the abstract, and who promises not to do it
again soon.  Now, back to the trenches.)