Subject: | |
From: | |
Reply To: | |
Date: | Sat, 2 Jan 1999 10:20:56 EST |
Content-Type: | text/plain |
Parts/Attachments: |
|
|
In a message dated 12/31/98 7:53:34 PM Central Standard Time,
[log in to unmask] writes:
<< Now you know why it's done - the stakes are very high.
An orally defensive baby - I had two particularly difficult ones this month
- is going to do better on breastfeeding in my nursery with LC help than if
he were intubated and on a ventilator in the NICU for a week. >>
From a medical standpoint, it is better to have a live & "healthy" baby who is
orally defensive than a sick, intubated baby who does not have the "chance" to
be orally defensive, if you know what I mean. That is one reason why I have a
hard time seriously accepting some of the "psycho-trauma" stuff due to
suctioning. Another reason is that when I think about all the "trauma" that
an infant suffers from being born (albeit natural), it is really hard to
seriously accept that properly-done suctioning of an infant's naso-
oropharyngeal space, airway and stomach for "real" medical reasons is somehow
going to cause some sort of weird psycho-oro-mental-cognitive anguish. Being
born, however natural, is much more traumatic than having your nose "snogged."
IMHO
Andrew MD
[log in to unmask]
|
|
|