Ahh, so. The discussion of suctioning in particular and interventions in
general rages on.

Of course there is a legitimate need for SOME unpleasant/uncomfortable/risky
interventions. However, the history of medical/health care is full of
examples of procedures that were instituted because somebody THOUGHT it
would help, and only later did others demonstrate the intervention to be
unhelpful, dangerous, or even lethal. Examples include treating nausea of
early pregnancy with thalidomide, administering "twilight sleep"
(scopolamine plus morphine) for labor pain, irradiating babies' thymus
glands "to prevent SIDS," installing x-ray machines in children's' shoe
stores to check the fit of shoes, and holding newborns up by their ankles
and smacking their buttocks to make them breathe. [I am old enough to
remember early strategies for reviving drowning victims - the back-pressure,
arm lift method performed with the victim placed prone, head turned to one
side.] The first skeptics of any given "standard" procedure are usually
labeled as fanatics or worse. Now these same practices, which were "state of
the art" at one time, are rightly assigned to the Horror Files.

I, for one, am calling for careful evaluation of all known and theoretical
risks in light of the known and alleged benefits of any given procedure. If
the benefit of suctioning for a given situation outweighs the risks, of
course it's appropriate and we will have to pick up the breastfeeding pieces
afterward. However, the first step in establishing careful practice is
acknowledging that RISKS EXIST. And yes, I'm shouting about this, and YES,
there is research to back up my skepticism.

Linda J. Smith, BSE, FACCE, IBCLC
Bright Future Lactation Resource Centre
Dayton, OH USA
http://www.bflrc.com