I am also very glad to see you on Lactnet, Andrew.  We need diverse points of
view to keep things interesting.  You've also contributed some valuable
information.

The recent spate of posts on traumatic procedures such as suctioning has
brought out the kind of "either-or" mentality that makes me tear my hair out.
I think most of us, especially those of us who work in hospitals, readily
acknowledge the value of modern medical procedures.  I don't understand,
though, why one cannot admit that these procedures are by their very nature
traumatic even when done skillfully and gently and when absolutely necessary.
I know, for example, that though clearly necessary and with a lot of good
preparation and gentle care, having heart surgery at the age of 5 was still
very traumatic to my son.

 Also that it is our obligation as humane health care practitioners not to use
procedures routinely or unnecessarily.  I agree that some on this list have a
point of view that is more extreme than mine would be on avoiding anything
that is not natural.  (Although I think those of us who work in hospitals need
them to keep us honest and questioning).    However, I fervently believe that,
if we all went into the care of mothers and babies with the attitude that
newborns have feelings that matter (mothers, too, for that matter), many
routine procedures would have by now been questioned.  We would always be
asking "Is this necessary in all cases?  Is there a gentler way?"   To do so
is not to be overly-sentimental or unrealistic about the risks inherent in
nature itself.

Also, I see you ignoring what many are saying:  that those of us who work in
the hospital with breastfeeding see CLINICALLY a difference in breastfeeding
behavior in babies who have experienced certain traumatic events during labor
and birth.  These include interventions such as labor epidurals, suctioning,
vaccuum and forceps; also events such as fetal distress and precipitous birth.
Why continue to deny that this kind of trauma is possible?  It is important
information to be able to let parents know that there is a reason why their
baby is not sucking properly and that, in most cases, with time and
assistance, this will improve.  Why set up a false dichotomy between
acknowledging that these procedures, although at times necessary, are
traumatic to the baby; and going back to a time when many babies died due to
the absence of these technologies?  And by the way, epidurals are not relevant
to a discussion of lifesaving interventions except in those cases where C-
sections are truly necessary.  And if, throughout human existence, 50% of
babies had died, the human race would not have survived.  I do agree, however,
that even though it's not nearly that many, the number of babies and mothers
that would  not survive childbirth without the availability (NOT routine use)
of modern interventions would be unacceptable to us.

By the way, although it may sound like "psycho-babble" if you haven't thought
of it that way, I think the term "oral rape" is not totally off base.  Feeding
is as central to babies as sex is to adults.  And just as rape or other sexual
trauma can block a woman's natural desire and enjoyment of sex, it seems
logical that an unpleasant oral experience can do the same for a baby's
natural desire and enjoyment of sucking.   We might not want to use the term
just anywhere, however; it does sound a bit loony out of context.  Hoping to
keep the conversation interesting but friendly.  Miriam Levitt RN, IBCLC